Opinion ID: 2225574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Restrictions on Court's Power to Order Equitable Relief for Contempt

Text: Like injunctions, both an original marital dissolution proceeding and proceedings for modification of dissolution decrees are equitable in nature. [45] We permit a party to use contempt proceedings to enforce a property settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree. [46] And a district court, in exercising its broad jurisdiction over marriage dissolutions, retains jurisdiction to enforce all terms of approved property settlement agreements. [47] Because of the court's continuing equity jurisdiction over the decree, the power to provide equitable relief in a contempt proceeding is particularly appropriate. [48] But there are limits to a court's power to order equitable relief in a contempt proceeding. We have held that a court cannot modify a dissolution decree in a contempt proceeding absent an application for a modification and notice that a party seeks modification. [49] Similarly, parties must have notice and a hearing before a court modifies a permanent injunction. [50] So, if a complainant seeks, or a court is considering, a modification of the underlying decree as an equitable sanction for contempt of the court's decree, the alleged contemnor must first have notice that a modification and a finding of contempt will be at issue. But when the alleged contemnor has notice and an opportunity to be heard, a court can modify the underlying decree as a remedy for contempt if the violation cannot be adequately remedied otherwise. Having determined that a court has jurisdiction to order compensatory and equitable relief, we now consider whether the court's order of civil sanctions was appealable.