Opinion ID: 1105828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurisdiction to Hold Contempt Proceedings

Text: The attorney general also argues that the trial court has the inherent authority to hold contempt proceedings with respect to attorneys because attorneys are officers of the court. The attorney general further argues that Rountree's material involvement in the trial proceedings subjected him to jurisdiction in a contempt proceeding. Rountree responds by arguing that the inherent jurisdiction of the trial court to hold contempt proceedings cannot extend to him because he never made an official appearance in the case. Lee v. Martin, 533 So.2d 185 (Ala. 1988); Maner v. Maner, 279 Ala. 652, 189 So.2d 336 (1966). The Court of Civil Appeals noted that Rountree did not represent any of the parties in the underlying case before the trial judge ... [and] ... Rountree was not an attorney of record in the underlying case [and did not] make an appearance in that case. Rountree, 694 So.2d at 18. Thus, that court concluded that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Rountree. We disagree.
A properly crafted jurisprudential test must advance the intrinsic legal interests at stake and must prove amenable to practical application by the bench and bar. See generally Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 28, 40-41, 48 (1926) (emphasizing that a jurisprudential rule must accurately embody the fundamental conceptions of the interests at stake and stating that the rule will be reframed if it does not); Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 407-08, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (stating that a judicial standard should be modified or replaced if it fails to withstand the force of better reasoning); Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111, 116, 86 S.Ct. 258, 15 L.Ed.2d 194 (1965) (stating that a jurisprudential standard that has proven unworkable in practice should be replaced). The test articulated by the Court of Civil Appeals limited the trial court's contempt jurisdiction to those persons with an official connection to the case. This test provides a workable standard, but it fails to adequately advance the intrinsic interests of the judiciary in the effective and efficient conduct of its proceedings. Requiring that an attorney have an official connection to a particular case before his actions will bind a litigant principally advances the due process interests of that litigant in receiving effective notice of legal proceedings. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.); Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. State ex rel. Krasner, 247 Ala. 469, 471, 25 So.2d 30, 32 (1945) (stating that due process requires that a party have adequate notice of a proceeding before that party can be bound by that proceeding). For example, in Maner, 279 Ala. 652, 189 So.2d 336, this Court considered whether notice sent to a Florida attorney bound a litigant in an Alabama proceeding. This Court held that because the Florida attorney was not the litigant's attorney of record in the Alabama proceeding, the notice to the Florida attorney was insufficient to bind that litigant to the judgment of the Alabama court. Id. at 658, 189 So.2d at 342. See Lee, 533 So.2d at 186 (defining an appearance not to include mere negotiation between parties and counsel outside of court, but to include the filing of some writing with the court). Thus, the official connection test used by the Court of Civil Appeals advances the interests of the litigants in receiving notice of judicial proceedings that may bind them. While the official connection test adequately advances the due process interests of the litigants, those interests are not at issue in this case. Instead, this case concerns the interests of the Judicial Branch of government in the effective and efficient conduct of court proceedings. The Constitution of Alabama of 1901 vests the judicial power in the Unified Judicial System. Ala. Const.1901, amd. 328, § 6.01(a). [3] The judicial power, at its core, is the power to render final judgments in cases before the courts. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 219, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) (stating that the Constitution gives the Judiciary the power, not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them); Sanders v. Cabaniss, 43 Ala. 173, 177 (1869) (stating that the judicial power requires the exercise of judgment in a case or controversy). Inherent in the constitutional obligation to render final judgments is the power to conduct judicial proceedings in an efficient and effective manner. See Ex parte Wetzel, 243 Ala. 130, 132, 8 So.2d 824, 825 (1942) (stating that a court has the inherent power to punish for contempt); Hall v. Hall, 485 So.2d 747, 749-50 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (stating that the Judiciary's authority to protect its adjudicatory processes is fundamental to its ability to effectively and efficiently administer justice). The interests implicated in effectively and efficiently conducting a judicial proceeding are not adequately served by limiting the exercise of judicial power to those who have an official connection to the proceeding. The administration of a judicial proceeding may be adversely affected by persons with no official connection to the proceeding. For example, in Coleman v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 21 So. 449 (1896), this Court stated that all who were present, whether by court order or voluntarily as mere bystanders or spectators, were subject to the contempt jurisdiction of the court, insofar as was necessary for the preservation of its order and decorum. Also, in Ex parte Mayor of Birmingham, 134 Ala. 609, 33 So. 13 (1902), this Court held that a trial court's contempt power extended to the prohibition of pedestrian travel along a street immediately in front of the courthouse, when the travel interfered with the administration of justice. The key interest to be protected by the contempt power, then, is a court's freedom from interference in the conduct of a judicial proceeding, whether that interference is caused by persons having an official connection to the proceeding, or by others. See, e.g., Ex parte Mayor of Birmingham, 134 Ala. 609, 33 So. 13. There are three prerequisites to the trial court's use of the contempt power to protect its proceedings from interference: (1) jurisdiction over an underlying legal proceeding; [4] (2) jurisdiction over the subject matterthe contempt; [5] and (3) jurisdiction over the personthe contemnor. Robertson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 514, 526, 104 So. 561, 573 (1924) (citing Ex parte Creasy, 243 Mo. 679, 699, 148 S.W. 914, 920 (1912)). [6] To the extent there has been interference with a court's judicial proceeding, that court has subject matter jurisdiction over that interference. By virtue of the interference, the trial court has personal jurisdiction over any person who is a significant cause of that interference. An assessment of each of these elements should be set forth in the trial court's order or in transcripts of a hearing, to facilitate proper appellate review. The issue in this case is the degree of interfering contact a person must have with a judicial proceeding to invest the court with personal jurisdiction over him. We hold that the personal jurisdiction of a court to charge a person with contempt extends to those persons who have caused significant interference with the orderly and efficient conduct of that court's judicial proceedings.
To decide whether the trial court may exercise its contempt power against Rountree, we must examine the facts and circumstances and determine whether each of the prerequisites for the exercise of such power exists. First, none of the parties disputes the trial court's jurisdiction over the underlying child support case. Robertson, 20 Ala. App. at 526, 104 So. at 573. Second, the delay of both the October 8, 1996, hearing and that portion of the October 29 hearing concerning Rountree constituted interference, and thus conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court. See Northern v. Hanners, 121 Ala. 587, 588, 25 So. 817, 817 (1899) (noting that delay of justice has long been punished by contempt). Third, Rountree engaged in conduct that caused significant interference with the trial court's proceedings; thus, the trial court had personal jurisdiction over him. Robertson, 20 Ala.App. at 526, 104 So. at 573. The trial court held a hearing on October 8, 1996, but postponed imposing punishment on Hudmon for nonpayment of child support until October 29, because of Rountree's failure to inform the trial court of his inability to attend the October 8 hearing. Although he received a copy of the trial court's order stating that the hearing was set for Tuesday, October 8, Rountree, an attorney and officer of the court, made no effort to inform the trial court that he would not attend that hearing. See Jackson v. State, 337 So.2d 1281, 1284 (Ala.1976) (If conflicts in scheduling arise, prompt, considerate notice to the judge should be provided....). [7] Moreover, Rountree affirmatively interjected himself into the proceeding by sending a hand-delivery letter to the trial court stating that he would represent Hudmon if granted a three-to four-week continuance. After Rountree had received the three- to four-week continuance he had requested, and after he had received oral and written orders from the trial court to appear at the October 29, 1996, hearing, he nevertheless failed to appear. Further, he did not file a copy of his petition for a writ of prohibition with the trial court before the date set for the hearing. Thus, the trial court engaged in a further proceeding a portion of which could have been avoided if Rountree had filed a copy of his writ of prohibition with the trial court before October 29. See Jackson, 337 So.2d at 1283-84 (requiring notice to the judge); Northern, 121 Ala. at 588, 25 So. at 817 (providing that delay of judicial proceedings is punishable by the contempt power). We hold that these delays constitute significant interference with the trial court's proceedings and that they are therefore sufficient to confer on the trial court personal jurisdiction over Rountree. [8]