Opinion ID: 2268995
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether It Was An Abuse Of Discretion To Deny Sam's Cross-Motion For An Order To Show Cause

Text: The July 2008 order on Sam's first motion to compel resolved his request for the Azalea items as follows: The heirlooms from his family are to be returned to him if [Kathleen] has them. If [she] no longer has the items, she is to provide an account for what happened to them, if she knows. An October 2008 order noted that some elements of the court's [July] order appear to yet be performed. In December 2008 Sam cross-moved for an order requiring Kathleen to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to account for the Azalea personalty in her possession. To establish that the property had been in her possession, Sam's supporting memorandum referred to his trial testimony and contended that Kathleen had submitted no response to either order. His reply memorandum referred the court to his April 2008 affidavit and noted that Kathleen had submitted no affidavit or sworn testimony in opposition, but only copies of letters from her lawyer. A January 2009 order denied Sam's motion without explanation. Sam argues on appeal that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to require Kathleen to show what happened to his Azalea personalty and by failing to hold a hearing to determine why he did not receive the property. He invokes only Civil Rule 70 on appeal, but in the superior court he relied on only Civil Rule 90(b) and AS 09.50.010(5). [35] We have described the requirements for a contempt order as follows: (1) the existence of a valid order directing the alleged contemnor to do or refrain from doing something and the court's jurisdiction to enter that order; (2) the contemnor's notice of the order within sufficient time to comply with it; and in most cases, (3) the contemnor's ability to comply with the order; and (4) the contemnor's wilful failure to comply with the order. [36] Sam asserts that we should review the denial of his motion for abuse of discretion, but the appropriate standard of review is not completely self-evident. Although we have reviewed a decision not to hold a party in contempt after the lower court conducted a Rule 90(b) hearing, [37] we have never reviewed a decision declining to hold a hearing. Rule 90(b), which Sam does not invoke on appeal, states that the court shall order the accused party to show cause or issue a bench warrant upon a proper showing, supported by affidavits. [38] It is conceivable that we should apply a less deferential standardsuch as de novo reviewthan the abuse of discretion standard Sam proposes. After all, whether Rule 90(b) mandates a show-cause order upon a proper showing and whether the moving party has made out a prima facie showing of contempt [39] are legal questions; the interpretation of the civil rules presents a legal question that we review de novo; [40] and we exercise our independent judgment in determining whether there are genuine, material factual disputes that cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. [41] On the other hand, we review for abuse of discretion an order enforcing or declining to enforce the trial court's own decree. [42] And we generally review a superior court's procedural decisions for abuse of discretion. [43] There is also a substantial question whether such a dispute is best analyzed under Rule 70, Rule 90, or AS 09.50.010. It is not necessary to decide here either what review standard or what analytical standard should apply. Even under the deferential abuse of discretion review standard Sam proposes, it was error not to require Kathleen to show causeand, if necessary, provide admissible evidenceexplaining why she had not complied with the heirloom order. Given that order's words, and the course of dealings regarding the Azalea items as reflected in Sam's trial testimony, his affidavit, and the lawyers' correspondence, Kathleen should have been ordered to comply with the order requiring that she explain what she knew about the location and disposition of the items Sam sought. Sam had identified a valid order the heirloom orderthat required Kathleen to respond, and there was no dispute Kathleen had ample time in which to comply. The heirloom order was sufficiently clear that neither the issuing court nor the parties could have read it to permit Kathleen to avoid responding. The order's only possible material ambiguity concerns its phrase if she knows. But that phrase did not excuse her from at least producing admissible evidence demonstrating that she did not know what had happened to the items. Kathleen opposed the show-cause motion, but did not demonstrate either that she was legally excused from complying with the heirloom order or that undisputed facts established her lack of knowledge. Her lawyer's unsworn opposition could not rebut permissible inferences that Kathleen did know what had happened to the items. Instead, her lawyer's letters submitted as exhibits imply that her reasons for not complying were invalid. [44] Kathleen could have readily complied with the heirloom order by explaining what she knew of the 28-some items. And if she indeed knew nothing of them or what happened to them, saying so would have complied with the order. We have recognized in other contexts that it is error not to hold an evidentiary hearing when there is a genuine issue of fact that is material. [45] If an appellant did not request an evidentiary hearing below, we will hold that it was error to fail to conduct such a hearing only if the failure was plain error. [46] Plain error exists if an obvious mistake has been made which creates a high likelihood that injustice has resulted. [47] Sam requested a show-cause hearing, and did not specifically ask for an evidentiary hearing on the Azalea items claim. Nevertheless, it should have been apparent from the parties' motion papers and exhibits that there were genuine, material factual disputes concerning Kathleen's compliance with the heirloom order, and that a show-cause hearing was needed to resolve those disputes. Because we conclude that even under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review it was error not to take steps to enforce the heirloom order, we vacate the order denying Sam's show-cause motion and remand for further proceedings. [48]