Title: Bott v. Bott

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

437 P.2d 684 (1968) 20 Utah 2d 329 Celeste BOTT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mary Turner BOTT, Defendant and Respondent. No. 10992. Supreme Court of Utah. February 19, 1968. Paul N. Cotro-Manes, of Cotro-Manes & Cotro-Manes, Salt Lake City, for appellant. Mary C. Lehmer, Ronald N. Boyce, Salt Lake City, for respondent. ELLETT, Justice: The parties hereto were divorced in July, 1966, after a four-year marriage. This was the third marriage for appellant and the fourth for respondent. The trial court in the decree divided the property between the parties and ordered Mr. Bott to pay Mrs. Bott $2400 at the rate of $200 per month. On June 7, 1967, Mrs. Bott caused an "Order to Show Cause in Re Contempt" to be signed by the simple expedient of presenting such an order to the district judge. No affidavit was made that Mr. Bott had failed to comply with the prior decree of the court. The order recited, among other things, that Mr. Bott appear on June 21, 1967, at 9:00 A.M. and show cause why he should not be found in contempt of court for having wilfully failed to comply with the decree of court heretofore entered. It was served on him June 16, 1967, which was a Friday. This was five days prior to the date set for hearing. Mr. Bott appeared without counsel and participated in the proceedings. After taking evidence the court found that neither of the parties had lived up to the decree and after adjusting accounts between them determined that Mr. Bott had wilfully failed to pay Mrs. Bott $1505 as of May 31, 1967. The court then found Mr. Bott to be in contempt of court and sentenced him to serve five days in the county jail of Salt Lake County. One assignment of error made by appellant is that he was not given the proper time between service of the order and hearing thereon. He relies upon Rule 6(a) and (d) of our Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 6(d) is as follows: Rule 6(a) provides: It is obvious that Rule 6(d) above refers to motions made to the court and served upon the opposing party. It does not refer to orders made by the court. That rule provides "* * * unless a different period is fixed * * * by order of the court." The court has fixed a different period when the document signed by the court orders a party to be and appear at a time certain. This assignment of error is without merit. Complaint is also made that the court did not advise Mr. Bott of his right to counsel. This was a civil matter involving a civil contempt, and the court was not required to advise Mr. Bott about counsel. The record shows that the court was very considerate of Mr. Bott and assisted him in cross-examining Mrs. Bott. There was no error in connection with this claim. Another assignment of error is that since no affidavit was submitted to the court as a basis for contempt proceeding, the court had no jurisdiction to determine that appellant was in contempt. Section 78-32-3, U.C.A. 1953, states: The construction of this statute was before this court in the case of Robinson v. City Court, 112 Utah 36, 185 P.2d 256. At page 41 of the Utah Reports, 185 P.2d at page 258 it was said: We agree with appellant in this regard and reverse that part of the decision wherein he was held in contempt and sentenced to serve time in jail. Other assignments of error are made, but they are without merit because under our statutes the court retains jurisdiction of the parties to modify the decree with respect to the distribution of the property. Section 30-3-5, U.C.A. 1953. Doe v. Doe, 48 Utah 200, 158 P. 781. Especially should this be true where the parties voluntarily litigate a matter over which the court has jurisdiction. The decision of the trial court is affirmed except as indicated above regarding the contempt matter. Costs to respondent. CROCKETT, C.J. and CALLISTER and TUCKETT, JJ., concur. HENRIOD, J., does not participate herein.