Case Title: GGV V. JLR, individually and on behalf of RR

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-04-7

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
GGV V. JLR, individually and on behalf of RR2005 WY 14105 P.3d 474Case Number: C-04-7Decided: 02/07/2005
 
 
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 
 
                                                                                                
   

 
 
GGV,

 
 
Appellant

(Respondent) 
,

 
 
v.

 
 
JLR, 
individually and on behalf of RR,

a minor 
child,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner) 
.

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofAlbanyCounty

The 
Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Appellant, 
pro se

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Mary 
Elizabeth Galvan, Mary Elizabeth Galvan, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming

 
 

Guardian 
Ad Litem:

            
Mary Chinnock Petroski of   
Prehoda, Leonard & Janack, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and GUTHRIE, 
D.J.

 
 
            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      By order entered 
on March 4, 2004, the district court held Appellant (GGV) to be in contempt of 
court because she had failed to pay attorney's fees and costs that this Court 
ordered her to pay to JLR, as well as for failure to pay guardian ad litem (GAL) 
fees that this Court and the district court had ordered her to pay.  We will refer to the later two parties 
as Appellees.  In order to coerce 
her obedience, the district court ordered that GGV be confined in jail for 180 
days.  However, that jail sentence 
was suspended provided that beginning on March 1, 2004, GGV pay at least $100.00 
a month toward attorney's fees (until the sum due had been paid in full), and 
$50.00 a month toward the GAL fees (until that sum due had been paid in 
full).  The payments due on each of 
the obligations allocated to GGV was to increase to $200.00 (for attorney's fees 
and costs) and to $100.00 (for GAL fees), if GGV's net monthly income exceeded 
$750.00 a month.  We will set out 
the details of that order below. 

 
 
[¶2]      GGV refuses to 
accept that order, as she has done with other orders of the instant court, as 
well as the orders of other courts, for more than a decade.  GGV v. JLR, 2002 WY 19, ¶¶5-10, 
39 P.3d 1066, ¶¶5-10 (Wyo. 2002).  
Her challenge to the district court's order has virtually no basis in the 
applicable law or the operative facts of this case.  Rather it is addressed in its entirety 
to her perversely obstinate view that the law should make exceptions for 
her.  We will affirm the district 
court's order and will grant the Appellees' motions that costs and penalties on 
affirmance be awarded in their favor under W.R.A.P. 10.05.

 
 

 
 
[¶3]      GGV states the 
issues as:

I.          
Did the lower court unjustly resurrect debtor prisons by using criminal 
punishment to collect a purely civil debt?

 
 
II.          
Was [GGV] denied her constitutional right to counsel under the United 
States Constitution?

 
 
III.         
Did the lower court abuse its discretion during previous 
proceedings?

 
 
Appellees 
provide this statement of the issues:

 
 
A.  Whether it was an abuse of discretion 
for the trial court to impose a sentence of incarceration to enforce its orders 
and the orders of the Supreme Court in a civil contempt 
proceeding.

 
 
B.  Whether it was an abuse of discretion 
for the trial court to deny [GGV's] request for appointment of counsel in a 
civil contempt proceeding under the facts of this case.

 
 
C.  Whether this Court has jurisdiction to 
consider [GGV's] challenge to proceedings predating or subsequent to the March 
4, 2004 order on joint motions for order to show cause.

 
 
D.  Whether [Appellees] are entitled to 
attorney's fees and costs against [GGV] pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
10.05.

 
 

 
 
[¶4]      The background 
for this case is found in our previous resolution of other issues that arose in 
this case.  GGV, ¶¶5-10.  For convenience, we will refer to that 
case as GGV I.  In addition, 
as an adjunct to that appeal, by orders entered on March 12, 2002, we awarded 
JLR attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $5,403.16, as well as attorney's 
fees and costs to the GAL in the amount of $1,508.00.  These attorney's fees and costs were 
awarded in accordance with W.R.A.P. 10.05 (no reasonable cause for the 
appeal).  Before GGV I was 
decided, the district court found GGV to be in contempt of the district court on 
March 2, 2001, for failure to make court-ordered payments to the GAL.  No appeal was taken from that 
order.  It is not necessary that we 
set out the exact amounts now due Appellees from GGV because GGV does not 
challenge the accuracy of the amounts included in the district court's 
orders.

 
 
[¶5]      By order entered 
on January 31, 2003, GGV was held to be in contempt of court for failure to pay 
attorney's fees and costs to JLR, as well as GAL fees.  At that time, she was sentenced to serve 
a term of 180 days in jail unless she began making payments on the attorney's 
fees ($200.00 per month) and on the GAL fees ($100.00 per month) beginning on 
January 31, 2003, and continuing to make such payments until both accounts were 
paid in full.  GGV also was ordered 
to remit any tax refunds she received from the Internal Revenue Service to the 
district court, those sums to be applied to the attorney's fees and GAL 
fees.  GGV did not appeal that 
order.  Because GGV disobeyed the 
district court's January 31, 2003 order, a bench warrant was issued on February 
12, 2003, for her arrest.  By 
February 21, 2003, GGV had made payments that brought her current through that 
date, and the district court quashed the arrest warrant.

 
 
[¶6]      In response to a 
renewed motion to issue a bench warrant filed by Appellees on March 4, 2003, 
once again documenting GGV's failure to obey the district court's January 31, 
2003 order, GGV filed a motion asking the district court to reduce the sums she 
owed to a judgment.  After notice 
and a hearing, the district court entered an order on July 15, 2003, again 
finding GGV to be in contempt of the district court for much the same reasons as 
it had done earlier in the year and concluding that her violation of the court's 
order was "willful and intentional."  
That order also remanded GGV to the custody of the Albany County Sheriff 
and directed that she be held in custody until she had paid arrearages in the 
amount of $1,420.00.  The district 
court also denied GGV's motion to reduce the Appellees' awards of attorney's 
fees and costs to a judgment upon which execution could issue.   On July 21, 2003, GGV complied 
with the district court's order by paying the $1,420.00 in arrearages, and she 
was released from jail.  GGV did not 
appeal from that order.  On August 
18, 2003, GGV again asked the district court to reduce the awards of attorney's 
fees and costs to a judgment.  That 
motion was set for hearing, but GGV withdrew it on September 26, 2003.  GGV's attorney, who had represented her 
throughout the above-described proceedings, was permitted to withdraw as counsel 
for GGV on October 2, 2003.

 
 
[¶7]      On December 17, 
2003, Appellees once again sought an order for a bench warrant, alleging that 
GGV continued to refuse to comply with the district court's orders.  On December 31, 2003, GGV (now appearing 
pro se) responded to that pleading by contending:  The district court must reduce the 
Appellees' claims to a judgment; that the district court was acting as a 
"collection agency" for the Appellees; that she could not be imprisoned for 
debt; and that she had, in good faith, tried to settle with the Appellees 
($1,000.00 to counsel for JLR, and $500.00 to GAL).  On January 22, 2004, the district court 
issued another order to show cause why GGV should not be held in contempt for 
her failure to obey the district court's earlier orders.  That matter was set for hearing on 
February 10, 2004.

 
 
[¶8]      At the opening of 
the hearing, GGV asked the district court to appoint an attorney to represent 
her and to grant her a continuance.  
The district court declined to appoint counsel on the basis that the 
hearing was a civil proceeding.  GGV 
did not specifically allege that she was indigent, or marshal facts to support a 
claim of indigence, though she did indicate she was not employed at that 
time.  The district court also 
refused to grant a continuance principally because the motion was not timely 
filed.  In her papers, GGV stated 
that she had attempted to obtain legal counsel, but had been unsuccessful in 
that effort.  She conceded she had 
made no payments to Appellees since July of 2003.  Continuing, GGV related that she had 
moved to Denver 
after her incarceration in July, but had been unable to find a job.  She also apologized to the district 
court for her conduct and acknowledged, "It was very wrong what I did."  GGV essentially conceded that she was at 
fault, that she could and should have been paying on the amounts due, and that 
if she had done so, the proceedings that day would have been unnecessary.  She further testified that she lived 
with her parents in Centennial, Colorado, and did not have to pay for room and 
board.  She also related that she 
had done some temporary work and odd jobs and earned from $100.00 to $500.00 a 
month.  She asserted that she had 
applied for many jobs, but did not retain copies of any of the applications she 
submitted to employers or otherwise provide documentation of her job 
search.  GGV admitted that she owned 
no property other than her car.  She 
claimed that she had tried to sell her car for $2,000.00, but that was not 
accomplished.  She also testified 
that she owed $3,000.00 to a bank on that car.  GGV's testimony revealed that she was 43 
years old, had earned a college degree in 2002, and thereafter had continued 
attending classes at the University of Wyoming seeking a second degree in 
education.

 
 
[¶9]      Throughout much 
of her testimony, GGV claimed that she had not understood the tenor or purport 
of the district court's various orders.  
GGV also had difficulty remembering how she spent her time during the 
periods when she did not make payments on the attorney's fees and costs she was 
ordered to pay.  However, at the 
close of the hearing, GGV did express her complete understanding of what the 
district court had previously ordered her to do and what he was about to order 
her to do in the future.

 
 
[¶10]   The order from which this appeal is 
taken provided in pertinent part:

 
 
1.  On March 19, 2001, this Court entered an 
Order Holding Respondent in Contempt of Court on the Guardian ad litem's Motion 
for Order to Show Cause because of Respondent's willful failure to pay Guardian 
ad litem fees incurred by the Guardian ad litem in the underlying action, which 
fees include the amounts still owing to the Guardian ad litem by the 
Respondent.

2.  On January 31, 2003, this Court entered 
an Order holding Respondent, [GGV], in contempt of court for her failure to pay 
fees and costs awarded to the Petitioner by the Wyoming Supreme Court in the 
amount of $5,403.60 [sic] on March 12, 2002, and sentenced Respondent to a term 
of incarceration in the Albany County Detention Center of 180 days, which was 
suspended on the condition that she make regular monthly payments to the 
undersigned attorney in the amount of $200.00 on the last day of each month, 
beginning on January 31, 2003, and that she turn over to the Court for payment 
to the undersigned attorney and the Guardian ad litem any income tax refund she 
may receive, until said amounts are paid in full.

3.  Respondent continued to refuse to pay 
the fees and costs awarded the Petitioner and the Guardian ad litem by the 
Wyoming Supreme Court and to pay the Guardian ad litem fees pursuant to the 
schedule ordered by this Court on January 31, 2003, and refused and otherwise 
failed to turn over her 2002 federal income tax refund following entry of the 
Order on Joint Motion for Order to Show Cause on January 31, 
2003.

 
 
4.  On July 11, 2003, hearing was held on a 
Joint Motion for Order to Show Cause filed by Petitioner and the Guardian ad 
litem.  Following hearing, this 
Court revoked the suspension of Respondent's 180 day sentence and ordered her 
incarceration, conditioned on her payment of her arrears to that 
date.

 
 
5.  On July 15, 2003, following [the] 
hearing, this Court entered an order revoking the suspension of Respondent's 
sentence for contempt of court pending her payment of $1,402.00 and further 
ordering Respondent to remain current in her monthly payments beginning July 31, 
2003.

6.  On July 21, 2003, Respondent paid the 
required $1,420.00 then owing, and was released from the AlbanyCountyDetentionCenter.

7.  Since July 21, 2003, Respondent has made 
no payments towards the attorneys' fees and sanctions awarded to the Petitioner 
and the Guardian ad litem in this matter, nor has she made any payment towards 
the Guardian ad litem's fees and costs in the underlying 
action.

8.  As of February 10, 2004, Respondent has 
a remaining balance of $4,271.84 on the attorney's fees and costs awarded to the 
Petitioner by the Wyoming Supreme Court and $2,308.76 on the attorney's fees and 
costs awarded to the Guardian ad litem by the Wyoming Supreme Court and her 
attorneys' fees and costs for the underlying action.

9.  Respondent has a baccalaureate degree, 
and is employed or is capable of employment, and has the ability to pay the 
amounts ordered by the Wyoming Supreme Court and this 
Court.

10.  The orders of the Wyoming Supreme Court 
and this Court are lawful orders of those courts.

            
11.  Respondent's refusal to 
make the scheduled payments on the attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the 
Wyoming Supreme Court [to the Petitioner] and to the Guardian ad litem is 
intentional, willful and deliberate and without just cause or 
excuse.

            
12.  Respondent is in 
contempt of this Court and the Wyoming Supreme Court.

 
 
NOW 
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

 
 
            
1.  That Respondent be, and 
she hereby is, held in contempt of court for failure to pay the attorney's fees 
and costs awarded to the Petitioner in the amount of 
$4,271.84.

            
2.  That Respondent be, and 
she hereby is, held in contempt of court for failure to pay Guardian ad litem 
fees incurred in the above entitled action and the fees and costs awarded to the 
Guardian ad litem by the Wyoming Supreme Court, in the total amount of 
$2,308.76.

            
3.  That Respondent be, and 
she hereby is, sentenced to a term of incarceration in the AlbanyCountyDetentionCenter of one hundred and eighty (180) 
days, said term of incarceration to be suspended on the terms and conditions set 
forth below.

            
4.  That the Respondent be, 
and hereby is, ordered to pay to the Petitioner a sum of no less than $100.00 
per month, on or before the 1st day of March, 2004, and that she 
continue to pay the sum of at least $100.00 per month on or before the first day 
of every month thereafter, until the award of attorney's fees to the Petitioner 
in the amount of $4,271.84 is paid in full.

            
5.  That the respondent be, 
and she hereby is, ordered to pay to the Guardian ad litem the sum of no less 
than $50.00 per month, to be paid on or before the 1st day of March, 
2004, and that she continue to pay the sum of at least $50.00 per month on or 
before the first day of every month thereafter, until the Guardian ad litem fees 
in the amount of $2,308.76 is paid in full.

            
6.  That at such time as the 
Respondent is earning a net monthly income of $750.00, her monthly payment to 
the Petitioner's attorneys' fees and costs shall increase to $200.00 per month, 
and her monthly payment towards the Guardian ad litem's fees and costs shall 
increase to $100.00.

            
7.  That the Respondent shall 
file her income tax returns each year and her W-2 statements each month with the 
Clerk of the District Court, Second Judicial District, in and for Albany County, Wyoming.

            
8.  All payments shall be 
made through the Office of the Clerk of the District Court, Second Judicial 
District, in and for Albany 
County, Wyoming.

            
9.  All terms and conditions 
of the Orders of this Court on the Joint Motion of the Petitioner and the 
Guardian ad litem entered on March 19, 2001, January 31, 2003 and July 15, 2003 
not modified herein shall remain in full force and effect.

            
10.  That the respondent be, 
and she hereby is, placed on notice that her failure to pay the sums due the 
Petitioner and the Guardian ad litem in any month or to turn over her income tax 
refunds on their receipt will result in the immediate implementation of the 180 
day sentence of incarceration, and she shall not be released from incarceration 
until any balance of the fees and costs due and owing to the Petitioner and the 
Guardian ad litem at such time are paid in full. 

 
 

 
 

 
 
[¶11]   GGV asserts that the district 
court's action resurrected debtor's prison in order for the Appellees to collect 
what she characterizes as a purely civil debt.  Although her arguments are amorphous and 
supported only by the most scant authority, we will address them in a general 
way.  It may well have been within 
the district court's discretion to reduce the sums owed Appellees to a judgment 
upon which they could have levied execution.  However, the district court did not 
abuse its discretion in not doing so here because it was evident from the very 
lengthy record in this case that GGV was not a viable candidate for execution 
because she did not work regularly, studiously avoided full-time employment, and 
had no assets upon which execution could be levied.  A district court may properly use its 
power of contempt to enforce payments such as those at issue here, and that is 
particularly so in domestic relations matters.  See 17 Am.Jur.2d Contempt 
§§ 124 and 125 (2004).  Moreover, 
GGV forthrightly admitted that she had acted wrongly and deliberately in 
refusing to bend her will to the orders of the district court.  It was apparent to the district court 
from the outset that the only effective tool available to it was its inherent 
power of contempt.  See Townes v. 
State, 502 P.2d 991, 993 (Wyo. 1972) ("A court's power to punish for 
contempt is a necessary and integral part of the independence of the 
judiciary."); also see In re Mayne's Estate, 345 P.2d 790, 795-96 (Wyo. 
1959) ("The petitioner, therefore, carries the keys of his prison in his own 
pocket."); and see generally Connors v. Connors, 769 P.2d 336, 343-48 
(Wyo. 1989).

 
 
[¶12]   GGV contends that this was a 
criminal proceeding and she was, thus, entitled to additional procedural 
safeguards not afforded her by the district court.  We have held:

  
 
 
We 
distinguish between criminal contempt and civil contempt by determining the 
purpose of the contempt order.  
Anderson v. Anderson, 667 P.2d 660, 662 (Wyo.1983);  Horn v. 
District Court, Ninth Judicial District, 647 P.2d 1368, 1372-73 
(Wyo.1982).  The purpose of a civil 
contempt is to coerce a party into complying with a prior court order, while the 
purpose of a criminal contempt is to punish a party who failed to comply with a 
prior order.  GN v. State 
(In re C.N.), 816 P.2d 1282, 1285 (Wyo.1991); Horn, 647 P.2d  at 
1373.   In other words:  "If the penalty is intended to operate 
in a prospective manner so as to bring about compliance with an order of the 
court, then it relates to civil contempt.  
If, however, the penalty is unconditional and imposed to vindicate a 
prior transgression against the court, then criminal contempt is involved."  Anderson, 667 P.2d  at 662 (citing 
Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S. Ct. 1531, 16 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1966)).

 
 

Munoz v. 
Munoz, 2002 
WY 4, ¶10, 39 P.3d 390, ¶10 (Wyo. 2002); also see Horn v. Welch, 2002 WY 
138, ¶12, 54 P.3d 754, ¶12, (Wyo. 2002); and see generally 1 Dan B. 
Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies, §§ 2.8(1)-2.8(3) (2nd ed. 
1993).

 
 
[¶13]   We are quite comfortable here in 
concluding that the proceedings were in the nature of civil contempt.  As can be gleaned from our recitation of 
the facts, GGV's due process rights were honored in all of the proceedings 
below, including ample notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasonable 
opportunity to employ counsel to represent her if she so desired.1  Although some courts have held that an 
indigent contemnor may be entitled to appointed counsel even in civil contempt 
proceedings (where incarceration is a real possibility), we need not discuss 
that issue in detail because GGV did not offer any meaningful evidence to the 
district court that she was indigent.  
See generally Marjorie A. Caner, Annotation, Right to 
Appointment of Counsel in Contempt Proceedings, 32 A.L.R.5th 31 (1995 and Supp. 
2004).

 
 
[¶14]   Under the circumstances of this 
case, the constitutional protection prohibiting imprisonment for debt2 is not implicated.  The order at issue here is not an order 
to pay a "debt" but an order to pay money arising from a status obligation.  1 Dan B. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of 
Remedies, § 2.8(2), at 193 (Imprisonment for Debt).  For a discussion of the potential length 
of time (or the number of times) a "determined contemnor" may be jailed, see 
Id., 
§ 2.8(3), at 202-4.

 
 

 
 
[¶15]   Our review of this issue is limited 
to those proceedings that resulted in the issuance of the district court's order 
of March 4, 2004.  GGV asserts, 
without benefit of cogent argument or the recitation of pertinent authority, 
that the district court abused its discretion during previous proceedings, as 
well as in the instant proceedings.  
GGV could have appealed from the district court's previous orders, but 
did not.  The time for filing 
appeals from those orders has long since passed.  See W.R.A.P. 1.03, 1.05, and 
2.01(a).  Moreover, as those 
proceedings progressed, earlier orders of the district court were subsumed into 
the current orders issued on the same subject.  We have examined the record before us 
with care and conclude that the district court did not abuse its 
discretion.

 

Penalties

 
 
[¶16]   Appellees ask that we impose 
penalties on affirmance.  We hereby 
certify that there was no reasonable cause for the appeal.  This appeal represents a continuation of 
GGV's intransigent disdain for the courts of this state and their 
processes.  Within 15 days of the 
publication and filing of this opinion, each Appellee shall submit a statement 
of attorney's fees and damages to this Court for our review so that an 
appropriate award may be ordered.  
W.R.A.P. 10.05 and 10.06.  
After those orders have issued, the district court shall enforce those 
orders as it has done with our past orders, or as it might otherwise so enforce 
them in its sound discretion.

 
 

 
 
[¶17]   We hold that GGV has not been 
imprisoned for debt, nor is she now threatened with imprisonment for debt.  GGV was not entitled to counsel 
appointed at State expense in these proceedings, and she was afforded adequate 
time to employ counsel at her own expense had she desired to do so.  The district court did not abuse its 
discretion in the proceedings below.  
The order of the district court is affirmed in all respects.  This appeal will remain on the Court's 
docket for the purpose of assessment of attorney's fees and 
damages.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

   1For a discussion of a civil 
contemnor's right to employ counsel, see Jack W. Shaw, Annotation, 
Right to Counsel in Contempt Proceedings, 52 A.L.R.3d 1002 (1973 and 
Supp.2004).

 
 
 2Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 5 provides:  "No person shall be imprisoned for debt, 
except in cases of fraud."  GGV 
recites a provision of the United States Constitution identical to that in the 
Wyoming Constitution.  There is no 
parallel provision in the United States Constitution.  However, there is a federal statute that 
provides that no federal court may imprison a person for debt in any state 
wherein imprisonment for debt has been abolished.  16B Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law 
§ 627 (1998).