IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Marriage of

KIMBERLY R. COLTRAIN

Respondent,

and

ERIC J. COLTRAIN,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 39138-8-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

STAAB, J. — Eric Coltrain appeals a contempt order and subsequent award of 

sanctions. He contends the trial court’s contempt finding was in error because the court 

failed to make a specific finding of bad faith. Eric also argues that the sanction 

imposed—changing joint decision-making to sole decision-making—was erroneous 

because the sanction was not requested and was unrelated to the basis for contempt. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

FILED

APRIL 16, 2024

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 39138-8-III

In re Marriage of Coltrain

2

BACKGROUND

During the parties’ dissolution, the trial court entered a temporary parenting plan 

setting the residential schedule for the parties’ three children. The temporary parenting 

plan provided for joint decision-making. A few months after the temporary plan was 

entered, Kim filed various motions requesting relief. The motion was not made part of 

the record on appeal, but there are indications in the record that Kim was requesting sole 

decision-making. In response to these “various motions” the court required the parties to 

“communicate with each other about child-related issues only and shall use a parenting 

app to do so.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 10. 

Four months later, Kim filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Eric was 

communicating with Kim about issues unrelated to the children. Eric did not deny the 

communications, but claimed that Kim did not have clean hands. The court then read 

into the record significant statements made by Eric that were unrelated to the children and 

found that the statements were not in response to anything said by Kim. The court held 

Eric in contempt for making the statements to Kim and ordered that Eric could purge the 

contempt by following the court’s orders for the next six months and pay the statutory 

amount plus Kim’s attorney fees. This contempt order is not before the court on appeal. 

Several months later, Kim filed another motion for contempt, alleging that Eric 

continued to violate the court’s order by communicating with Kim about issues unrelated 

to the children. Kim provided the court with 25 instances of inappropriate 
No. 39138-8-III

In re Marriage of Coltrain

3

communications spanning five months. She asked that the court grant sanctions for 

contempt, establish conditions to purge the contempt, and grant any other relief, 

including a civil penalty and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

At the contempt hearing, Eric, who was representing himself, did not deny making 

the statements identified by Kim but indicated confusion about what he could say and 

explained that he was “talking about parenting issues and/or advocating for my kids.” 

Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 9-10. Additionally, Eric accused Kim of instigating abusive use of 

conflict. He suggested that Kim was also violating the order, arguing that for every 

instance of contempt alleged by Kim, he could identify “an analogous one on her end.” 

RP at 12. 

In its oral decision, the court pointed to numerous communications by Eric that did 

not relate to the children. The court noted that Eric did not deny the communications but 

seemed to have an “insatiable need to have these inappropriate conversations” that had 

nothing to do with the children. RP at 20. The court found Eric in contempt and in 

addition to the statutory fee and attorney fees, ordered that Kim would have sole 

decision-making because the court saw no other way to make the inappropriate 

communications stop.

In its written order, the court found that Eric “failed to abide by the terms of the 

[July 1, 2021] order by continuing to communicate with Petitioner in a hostile and 

abusive manner.” CP at 128. The court also found that Eric did “not deny his statements 
No. 39138-8-III

In re Marriage of Coltrain

4

violated the court’s order,” and his failure to follow the order was “intentional.” CP at 

128. Finally, the court found that Eric was “not willing to follow [the July 1, 2021] order

[and] Respondent has demonstrated this by his willful actions.” CP at 128. As part of 

the sanctions, the court ordered that the temporary parenting plan be amended to reflect 

that Kim would have sole decision-making for the parties’ children.

Eric appeals.

ANALYSIS

1. BAD FAITH

Eric contends that the contempt order cannot stand because the court made no 

finding of bad faith. Kim argues that a written finding of intentional misconduct is 

sufficient to find contempt. We find that the order of contempt was supported by the 

court’s findings. 

The court’s decision arising from a contempt proceeding is reviewed for an abuse 

of discretion. In re Marriage of Williams, 156 Wn. App. 22, 27, 232 P.3d 573 (2010). 

“A court abuses its discretion by exercising it on untenable grounds or for untenable 

reasons.” Id. 

The court must find a parent in contempt if “based on all the facts and 

circumstances, the court finds after hearing that the parent, in bad faith, has not complied 

with the order.” RCW 26.09.160(2)(b). A finding that a parent “intentionally failed to 

comply with a lawful order of the court” is sufficient to establish bad faith. In re 
No. 39138-8-III

In re Marriage of Coltrain

5

Marriage of Davisson, 131 Wn. App. 220, 224, 126 P.3d 76 (2006). Here, the court 

found that Eric intentionally failed to comply with the court’s order. 

Nevertheless, Eric argues that a specific finding of bad faith is required. To 

support his position, he relies on Williams for his argument that one “must establish the 

contemnor’s bad faith by a preponderance of the evidence.” Williams, 156 Wn. App. at 

28 (emphasis added). However, this argument fails because this passage from Williams 

cites James which refers to “bad faith or intentional misconduct” as sufficient to 

predicate a contempt judgment. Id.; In re Marriage of James, 79 Wn. App. 436, 440, 903 

P.2d 470 (1995). Eric’s argument is foreclosed by Davisson where we held that a court’s 

finding that a parent “intentionally failed to comply with a lawful order of the court,” is 

sufficient to support a finding of contempt even in the absence of a specific finding of 

bad faith. 131 Wn. App. at 224. 

The court’s findings supported the finding of contempt. 

2. SANCTIONS

Eric maintains that the trial court erred by imposing sole decision-making because 

Kim did not request sole decision-making and the sanction was unrelated to the basis for 

contempt. Kim argues that the trial court has broad discretion to award sole decisionmaking, and the sanction related to the violation. We find no abuse of discretion. 
No. 39138-8-III

In re Marriage of Coltrain

6

“A court’s authority to impose sanctions for contempt is a question of law” 

reviewed de novo. In re Interest of Silva, 166 Wn.2d 133, 140, 206 P.3d 1240 (2009). 

Eric argues that Kim did not specifically request sole decision-making as a remedy or 

sanction and therefore the court was without authority to provide this as a sanction. We 

disagree for several reasons. 

First, as we noted above, the record suggests that Kim did seek sole decisionmaking authority in one of her first motions and the court noted that her original concerns 

were ongoing and part of the contempt proceedings. Second, in her request for relief 

Kim made both specific and general requests for relief including a request for “any other 

relief.” CP at 189. Third, RCW 26.09.160(6) authorizes a court “to impose remedial 

sanctions for contempt of court and is in addition to any other contempt power the court 

may possess.” Any one of these reasons justify the court’s sanction in this case. 

Eric also contends that the decision to award Kim sole decision-making was not 

related to the findings of contempt. We view the sanctions imposed by a court upon a 

finding of contempt for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Lesinski & Mienko, 21 

Wn. App. 2d 501, 514, 506 P.3d 1277 (2022). 

Here, the trial court imposed a remedial sanction awarding sole decision-making 

to Kim “given [Eric’s] inability to communicate in a non aggressive [sic] rational 

manner.” CP at 129. The court previously warned that if Eric continued to violate the 

order, the sanction would be sole decision-making because the court did not otherwise 
No. 39138-8-III

In re Marriage of Coltrain

7

know how to stop the inappropriate behavior. At the very least, awarding Kim sole 

decision-making would reduce the parties’ need to communicate with each other and was 

therefore “designed to ensure compliance with a prior order of the court.” RCW 

7.21.030(2)(c). The trial court’s decision to change the temporary parenting plan and 

award sole decision-making to Kim was not an abuse of discretion. 

3. ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL

Both parties request attorney fees on appeal. Eric does not prevail and we 

therefore deny his request. Kim contends that she is entitled to a fee award on appeal 

because her attorney fees result from a contemnor’s noncompliance, citing RCW 

26.09.160(3)(b). We agree. 

Upon a finding of contempt, “the court shall order . . . [t]he noncomplying parent 

to pay, to the other parent or party, all court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred 

as a result of the noncompliance.” RCW 26.09.160(3)(b). This penalty is mandatory 

when the court finds bad faith or intentional misconduct. In re Marriage of Eklund, 143 

Wn. App. 207, 214-15, 177 P.3d 189 (2008). Because Eric intentionally failed to comply 
No. 39138-8-III

In re Marriage of Coltrain

8

with the court order, he is required to pay the reasonable attorney fees that Kim incurred 

to enforce the court’s order, including defending this appeal. See id. at 218.

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040.

_________________________________

Staab, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________

Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.

_________________________________

Pennell, J.