Case Title: Mitchell v. Flynn

Citation: 

Docket Number: 478-a-2d-1133-0

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 1984-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Decided August 3, 1984. *1134 Mark S. Kierstead (orally), Waterville, Jed Davis, Augusta, for plaintiffs. Richard N. Goodwin (orally), Concord, Mass., Steven E. Cope, Portland, for defendant. Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ. SCOLNIK, Justice. The defendant, Patrick Flynn, was held in civil contempt by the Superior Court (Kennebec County) for failure to comply with its earlier order directing the defendant to make certain payments. Because the Superior Court erroneously imposed on the defendant the burden of proving his inability to comply with the judgment, we vacate the order of contempt. In Mitchell v. Flynn, 460 A.2d 1375 (Me. 1983), we affirmed a judgment against the defendant for breach of contract arising from the sale of real estate. In addition to monetary damages the judgment included equitable provisions ordering the defendant to purchase, within thirty days of the finality of the judgment, the property that he previously sold to the plaintiffs and to pay, until he purchased the lots, all property taxes assessed on the property and all interest payments due on the plaintiffs' mortgage on the property. The defendant's noncompliance with these orders gave rise to this proceeding. Pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 252 (Supp. 1983-1984)[1] the plaintiffs complained in writing and under oath that the defendant had disregarded and disobeyed the court judgment. The Superior Court entered an order that the defendant appear before it to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for his failure to comply with the equitable orders contained in the final judgment.[2] A hearing was held on *1135 October 31, 1983 with the defendant appearing through counsel. After hearing, the Superior Court found that the defendant had not complied with its earlier orders and failed to prove inability to comply with the orders. The Court then held the defendant in contempt of court and ordered his incarceration at the Kennebec County jail until he purged himself of the contempt by paying $47,127.94 to the plaintiffs. A warrant was further ordered for the defendant's arrest. The defendant appeals from the contempt order. An essential element of civil contempt is the defendant's ability to comply with the court's order. Wells v. State, 474 A.2d 846 , 851 (Me.1984); Yoder v. County of Cumberland, 278 A.2d 379 , 390 (Me. 1971). When the allegedly violated order itself contains an implicit finding of ability to comply at the time the order issued, there arises a presumption that the defendant is also presently able to comply and the plaintiff makes his prima facie case of contempt of court by establishing that the defendant has failed to comply with a valid court order. See, e.g., United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 , 756, 103 S. Ct. 1548, 1552, 75 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1983) (order to produce records); Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56 , 75 (1948) (order to turn property over to another); Leslie v. Leslie, 174 Conn. 399, 401, 389 A.2d 747, 749 (1978) (order to pay child support and alimony); State ex rel. Thrasher v. Hayes, 177 Ind.App. 196, 378 N.E.2d 924 , 929 (1978) (order to repair fence); Wilson v. Fenton, 312 N.W.2d 524 , 527 (Iowa 1981) (order to deliver merchantable title to property); Winter v. Crowley, 245 Md. 313, 317, 226 A.2d 304, 307 (1967) (custody order); Barrett v. Barrett, 470 Pa. 253, 263, 368 A.2d 616 , 621 (1977) (order to pay child support and alimony); Ohland v. Ohland, 141 Vt. 34, 442 A.2d 1306 , 1310 (1982) (same); State v. Mecca Twin Theater and Film Exchange Inc., 82 Wash. 2d 87 , 91, 507 P.2d 1165 , 1168 (1973) (order to produce film). Upon such a showing the defendant has the burden of production, of going forward with evidence of his inability to comply. The burden of persuasion, however, remains with the plaintiff. The orders in the present case for the payment of taxes and mortgage interest contain no implication of ability to pay. See Roy v. Leventhal, 5 Mass.App. 792, 793, 360 N.E.2d 688, 689 (1977) (money judgment); Union Trust Co. v. Monroe, 34 Ohio App. 47, 50, 170 N.E. 369, 370 (1930) (order to purchase property). Thus, the plaintiffs were unable to establish their prima facie case upon a simple showing of an unsatisfied court order and the defendant never had the burden of producing evidence of a present inability to comply with the orders in question. Because the Superior Court erroneously imposed upon the defendant the burden of proving his inability to comply with the judgment, we vacate the order of contempt. The entry is: Order of contempt vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. All concurring.