No. 88-097
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATEOF MONTANA
1988

VALLEY UNIT CORPORATION,a Montana corporation, Petitioners,-vsCITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, a municipal corporation, the City Commission of and for the City of Bozeman, Montana, Namely,KENNETH WEAVER,MARY VANTHULL, ANNEANDERSON and JUDYMATHRE, Respondents, and
D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., INC., a Montana corporation, Intervenor,-vsVIRGIL JAHNKE, PHYLLIS JAHNKE and VALLEY UNIT CORPORATION,a Montana corporation, Defendants in Intervention.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Petitioners: Kelly M. Hogan, Bozeman,Montana
For Respondents: Bruce Becker, CityAttorney, Bozeman,Montana J. Robert Planalp,Bozeman, Montana BruceA. MacKenzie, Bozeman, Montana, (D.A.Davidson)

Submitted on Briefs: March 31, 1988 Decided: May 10,1988 

### MAY10

### 1988 Filed:- 

# &

# *,- #

ClerkMr. Justice Wil.liam E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari for which Virgil and Phyllis Jahnke d/b/aValley Unit Corp. seek review of a contempt order of the District Court, Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County against Virgil Jahnke. Thepetition for the writ of certiorari isdenied. In 1982,Valley Unit Corp. sued the City of Bozeman (the City) and its commissioners in the District Court, contesting the procedures the City used to assess special improvement district (SID) bonds on Valley Unit's development project. In the court order dated September 6, 1985, based on the settlement of this matter, the City was directed to relevy and reassess the SIDs and Valley Unit was ordered to deposit a letter of credit from a national bank with the City by October 15, 1985. Virgil Jahnke had represented that he was assured a letter of credit from the U.S. National Bank of Oregon. The Bank, however, claims no knowledge of any such promise from them to him and no creditwas extended by them tohim. On September 25, 1986, the City filed a petition alleging Valley Unit had failed to comply with the September 1985 order and calling for punishment for contempt of court against Virgil Jahnke,principal shareholder and director of Valley Unit. Specifically,theCity alleged that Valley Unit had failed to provide the letter of credit and had failed to pay certain assessments delineated in the court's order of settlement. This petitionwas supported by an affidavit. At
a subsequent hearing, Jahnke was found in contempt for not producing certain financial recordspursuant to an unrelated subpoena duces tecum and was sentenced to 48 hours in theGallatin County DetentionCenter. This citation isnot being challenged. No action was taken on the allegations in the City'spetition. In late 1986, Valley Unit filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy which automatically stayed the contempt proceeding. The City filed a motion to show cause November 24, 1986. TheCity renewed itsmotion for contempt inApril, 1987. A hearing was held and by order dated February 8, 1988, Virgil Jahnke was found in contempt of the court's order of settlement for failing to produce the letter of credit from a national bank. Jahnke was sentenced to five days in jail. Jahnke seeks review of this chargeby way of a writ of certiorari. With few exceptions, a contempt of court order can only be reviewedupon awrit of certiorari. Section 3-1-523,MCA. There are three requisites that must be satisfied before a writ of certiorari may be issued: 1) the inferior court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction; 2) a right to appeal from the disputed order does not exist; and, 3) there lacks any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Section 27-25-102, MCA. State v. McAllister (Mont. 1985), 708 P.2d 239, 241, 42 St.Rep. 1515, 1517. All three of these requirements must be met. Failure tomeet any one requires this Court todeny thepetition. A judgment of contempt is final and conclusive. Since the only review available for a contempt proceeding is, bv statute, through a writ of certiorari, the second and third requirementsof § 27-25-102,MCA are fulfilled. We limitour inquiry, then, to determining whether the District Court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its February 8, 1988 order of contempt. The thrust of appellant's argument is that because the City's motion to show cause was not accompanied by a.naffidavit as required by 5 3-1-512,MCA, the court could not obtain jurisdiction. The statute reads: When the contempt isnot committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at chambers, an affidavit of the facts constituting the contempt or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators or other judicial officer shallbe presented to the court or judge.
The court initially obtained jurisdiction of thematter when the City filed its petition for contempt with an accompanying affidavit in full compliance with the statute. Implicit in appellant's argument is the contention that the District Court somehow lost jurisdiction of the contempt matter after the City's petition calling for contempt was initially filed. Although the Jahnkes filed for bankruptcy after the courthad obtained jurisdiction, it iswell settled that abankruptcy proceeding does not divest a state court of jurisdiction over the matter; it only stays or suspends the proceedings. Davidv. Hooker,Ltd. (9thCir. 1977), 560 F.2d 412, 418; In re Clowser (E.D.Va. 1984), 39 Bankr. 883, 884; In reRelated Asbestos Cases 

### (N.D. Cal. 1982), 23 Bankr. 523, 526. Neither does a party's filing of a bankruptcy petition constitute a dismissal of the state court action. David, 560 F.2d at 418; Stewartv. A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (D. S.C. 1987), 74Bankr. 26, 27. The City's petition for contempthad not yet been ruled
onwhen theJahnkes filed their petition for bankruptcy. The proceedings were then stayed. Approximately one week after the bankruptcy petition had been dismissed the City renewed its efforts in the contempt matter by filing amotion to show cause why Virgil Jahnke should not be held in contempt for failing to obey the court's order. The basis of thismotion

was that Jahnkehad still not produced a letter of credit as ordered 

### by the District Court. This motion 

### was not

### accompaniedby an affidavit. The court,however,alreadyhad in its possession an affidavit concerning the contempt. The City's motion did not inject into the suit any matters that
were not already contained in its earlier petition. Another affidavitwasunnecessary. We hold that the District Court was within its jurisdiction. The petition for writ of c

We Concur:

4 

### Chief' Justice 

### A



# / Justices