Case Title: TRACY, GREEN & COMPANY. v. GEORGE WARNER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-08-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
TRACY, GREEN & COMPANY. v. GEORGE WARNER1985 WY 113704 P.2d 1306Case Number: 84-139Decided: 08/19/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming
TRACY, GREEN & 
COMPANY, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF), 

v. 

GEORGE WARNER, APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT).

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, CampbellCounty, Paul T. Liamos, Jr., 
J.

 
 
Michael A. 
Maycock of Daly, Maycock, Anderson & Taylor, P.C., Gillette, for appellant.

No appearance 
for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Appellant, Tracy, Green 
& Company, was found to be in contempt of court and fined one hundred 
dollars. On appeal appellant contends that the district court failed to follow 
proper procedure in issuing the contempt citation. We agree and 
reverse.

[¶2.]     On December 16, 1983, 
appellant filed a civil complaint against George Warner seeking recovery of an 
indebtedness in the amount of two thousand seven hundred thirteen dollars and 
forty-seven cents. On January 13, 1984, appellant filed a request for an entry 
of default. That same day, default was entered. On February 14, 1984, appellant 
applied for a default judgment. That same day a default judgment was 
entered.

[¶3.]     On March 28, 1984, 
appellant filed a Motion for Proceedings in Aid of Execution. On March 30, 1984, 
the district court entered an order directing the defendant, George Warner, to 
appear at 8:30 a.m. on April 24, 1984, so that he could be examined concerning 
his income and assets. He was also to bring various records with him which would 
assist appellant in discovering his income and assets.

[¶4.]     On April 24, 1984, the 
defendant, George Warner, failed to appear. On April 30, 1984, appellant filed a 
motion requesting an order to show cause why the defendant should not be held in 
contempt of court. That same day the district court entered an order directing 
the defendant to appear at 1:30 p.m. on May 8, 1984, and to show cause why he 
should not be found in contempt. No show-cause order was entered directing 
appellant to appear and show cause.

[¶5.]     On May 8, 1984, the 
show-cause hearing was held. At the hearing appellant's attorney explained that 
he had just that morning learned why the defendant had failed to appear on April 
24. Counsel explained that, prior to the scheduled hearing, the defendant had 
agreed with Mr. Green of Tracy, Green & Company to pay the indebtedness 
within sixty days. Appellant's attorney was not informed regarding this 
agreement; this was apparently a simple oversight on the part of appellant, 
Tracy, Green & Company. Their attorney, not knowing of the agreement, had 
caused the contempt citation to issue and be served upon 
defendant.

[¶6.]     The court found 
defendant, George Warner, in contempt, sentenced him to ten days in jail, and 
then suspended the sentence upon the condition that he cooperate in being 
examined as to his assets. The court then, without any notice or contempt 
citation having been issued with respect to appellant, Tracy, Green & 
Company or Mr. Green, stated:

"I understand there were 
extenuating circumstances and I'm going to take care of 
that.

"Now, orders to show 
cause are serious matters and invoke the authority and the powers of the court 
because somebody has not appeared pursuant to an order and we bring this man in 
here to show cause why he shouldn't be found in contempt.

"It's understandable to 
this court and that's why the court hasn't given any harsher penalty why Mr. 
Warner would take the word of Mr. Green that he gave him 60 
days.

"Mr. Green or Mr. Tracy 
certainly should have contacted their counsel and advised them of this, find out 
the procedure that should have been followed.

"So, the court is going 
to fine Mr. Green $100 for being in contempt of court for interferring with 
court process, direct that that be paid within 10 days to the clerk of the 
district court."

In accord with 
the court's declaration, a contempt order was entered on May 9, 1984. From that 
order, appellant has brought this appeal.

[¶7.]     The procedure to be 
followed in issuing a contempt citation varies depending upon the classification 
of the contempt. There are several ways to categorize contempt of court. The 
most basic division is between civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is 
remedial in nature and is intended to serve the purpose of the complainant 
through the coercive power of the court. Horn v. District Court, Ninth Judicial 
District, Wyo., 647 P.2d 1368 (1982). Criminal contempt, 
on the other hand, is punitive in character. It is used to punish behavior which 
is disruptive or disrespectful to the court. Townes v. State, Wyo., 502 P.2d 991 
(1972). Clearly the court here imposed the fine as a punitive measure. It was 
designed to punish conduct which the court considered disruptive and 
disrespectful.

[¶8.]     The procedure to be 
followed where criminal contempt is involved is found in Rule 41, W.R.Cr.P., 
which provides in pertinent part:

"(a) Summary disposition. - A criminal 
contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard 
the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual 
presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts, shall be 
signed by the judge and entered of record.

"(b) Disposition on notice and hearing. - A 
criminal contempt except as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule shall be 
prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, 
allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state 
the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it 
as such. The notice shall be given orally by the judge in open court in the 
presence of the defendant, or on application of the prosecuting attorney, or of 
an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause 
or an order of arrest."

[¶9.]     The rule permits 
summary action "if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct 
constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of 
the court." It is undisputed that the conduct which the court found to be 
contemptuous here occurred outside the court's presence. Accordingly, the court 
could not act summarily. Under Rule 41(b), W.R.Cr.P., the contempt outside the 
presence of the court can only be prosecuted upon notice which states "the time 
and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the 
defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt 
charged."

[¶10.]  No such notice or contempt citation was 
issued by the court to appellant, Tracy, Green & Company, or to Mr. Green. 
The failure of the court to file and have served such notice is comparable to 
the failure of a prosecutor to file an information or indictment. Without the 
notice the court never obtains jurisdiction to proceed. The court here lacked 
jurisdiction to cite appellant, Tracy, Green & Company, with criminal 
contempt. Accordingly, we must declare the order of contempt null and 
void.

[¶11.]  Reversed.