Title: Davis v. Davis
Citation: 158 N.W.2d 196
Docket Number: 40400
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: March 29, 1968

158 N.W.2d 196 (1968) Blanche DAVIS, Respondent, v. Harry R. DAVIS, Appellant. No. 40400. Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 29, 1968. *197 Friedman &amp; Friedman, Duluth, for appellant. Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, John C. Arko, County Atty., Donald J. Paquette, Asst. County Atty., Duluth, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and MURPHY, ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN and PETERSON, JJ. SHERAN, Justice. Appeal by Harry R. Davis from an order of the district court finding him in contempt by reason of his failure to pay alimony and support money and directing his confinement conditionally. We have examined the contentions of the defendant in light of our recent decision in Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 156 N.W.2d 212, filed January 26, 1968, and have concluded that the order finding him in contempt should be affirmed and that the order directing his confinement (if supplemented by a provision granting defendant freedom upon compliance either before or after his immurement begins) is within the power of the district court in the proper exercise of its civil contempt authority. Because defendant appeared generally and testified in the contempt proceedings, we are now concerned principally with those aspects of the proceedings treated in paragraphs 2(f), 2(g), and 2(h) of our opinion in the Hopp case, 279 Minn. 175, 156 N.W.2d 217, where we noted that the limitations upon civil contempt powers include: Formal and detailed findings were made by the trial judge on the basis of testimony taken on February 3 and March 31, 1966. From these findings it appears that a divorce decree was entered July 24, 1964, which directs defendant to pay to Blanche Davis, his former wife, $40 per month as alimony and $120 per month for the support of three minor children of the parties for a total of $160 per month. The trial court found that as of February 3, 1966, defendant was in arrears on account of these payments in the amount of $1,398. His reported income for 1963 was approximately $3,600; for 1964, approximately $4,800. His earnings in 1965 came to approximately $3,600. The sole source of income for the defendant is a repair shop in Duluth called "Mr. Fix-it Service Center." Although defendant claimed that this business was owned by his brother, Arthur, the trial court found that defendant was the real owner and that during the period from February *198 1963 to February 1966 the assets of this business increased by approximately $7,000. The trial court also found that defendant was obligated to pay $60 per month as support for four children of a prior marriage but that he had not done so. Upon these findings of fact the trial court determined (1) that defendant willfully violated the alimony and support provisions of the July 24, 1964, divorce decree, and (2) that defendant was able to pay the arrearages existing on account of his failure to conform with the requirements of that order. The decision concludes as follows: The decision was filed on April 11, 1966. Defendant then moved that the order of the district court be amended to eliminate the directions for confinement of the defendant and to provide instead for the appointment of a receiver of the assets of his business. This motion was denied by the trial judge, who states in his memorandum: In his brief, defendant contends that certain findings of fact made by the trial court are not sustained by the evidence. The significant finding, in our opinion, is that which relates to the ownership of the business operated by defendant. The evidence in support of the proposition that Harry R. Davis is the owner of "Mr. Fixit" and of the inventory and equipment used in that business is overwhelming. This being the case, the trial judge was justified in determining that defendant's failure to pay was contumacious. Because of comments made at the time of oral argument, we call attention to one phase of the order of the court which may cause difficulty in the future. A person confined in civil contempt proceedings must be able to effect his release by compliance with the order of the court directing the acts to be performed by the defendant as an alternative to confinement. If at any time prior to the expiration of his sentence, the defendant makes application to the district court *199 for his release and establishes that the arrearages have been paid, he must be discharged. As stated in Hopp v. Hopp, supra, the only object of the exercise of civil contempt powers in divorce cases is to secure compliance with an order presumed to be reasonable. Punishment for past misconduct is not involved; that is a field reserved to criminal proceedings. Affirmed and remanded.