Opinion ID: 1891089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for her loss;

Text: C. Impose appropriate sanctions against Defendant for his contempt, including incarceration; D. Order Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for the attorney's fees related to this motion and hearing thereon; E. Issue the attached Show Cause Order and schedule a hearing at the earliest possible time; and F. Grant such other and further relief as this cause may require. Subsequently, a show cause order was issued by the court. The defendant James responded by asserting that he had timely paid all insurance premiums when he was given the bills, and that the fire was caused by the bedroom mattress which caught on fire because Plaintiff left a lamp thereon, and went to a party, leaving the children home with a babysitter. At the hearing on the contempt petition and in a memorandum, James asserted that the insurance referred to in the pendente lite order was the insurance on the condominium unit, not the contents, and that the insurance on the unit was always maintained. James also argued, inter alia, that a contempt action was not an appropriate action to resolve the question of which party's negligence caused a loss to the contents, that the use of a contempt action to resolve this issue was to short circuit due process of law to Defendant, that [n]egligence is a tort action to which Defendant is entitled to a trial by jury under [the] facts, that contempt require[s] a willful action or inaction in violating a clear mandate of [a] Court Order and does not include and can not be support[ed] by innocent inaction or negligence, and that the plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the compensatory damages demanded of the plaintiff. The plaintiff Amelia asserted that the insurance referred to in the pendente lite order included insurance coverage on the personal property contents of the condominium, that James was responsible for paying the premiums and had, in fact, paid the premiums until November 2000, that James's failure to pay the premium in November 2000 was a violation of the pendente lite order, that [n]othing in Lynch [v. Lynch, 342 Md. 509, 677 A.2d 584 (1996) ] or any other appellate decisions in Maryland requires a finding of `wilfulness' before holding a defendant in civil contempt, that James may be held in contempt for not paying the insurance premium. . . regardless of whether the Court determines that the failure to pay was negligent or wilful, that the petitioner in a contempt proceeding must only prove that the money was not paid, and that a trial court may award compensatory damages in a civil contempt proceeding. The only authority relied upon for the assertion that compensatory damages may be awarded in a civil contempt action was Jones v. Wright, 35 Md.App. 313, 370 A.2d 1144 (1977). Following the hearing at which several witnesses testified, and the submission of memoranda, the trial judge filed a written opinion and order holding that this was a civil rather than a criminal contempt action, that the defendant James was required by the pendente lite order to pay the November 2000 premium bill for insurance on the condominium contents, that the defendant failed, albeit negligently, to timely pay that insurance bill, and that this court finds the defendant to be in civil contempt. The court also found that the negligence was solely that of the defendant; neither the insurance agent nor the plaintiff were found to be negligent. The court rejected the defendant's argument that he should have a jury trial on the negligence issue. With regard to the defendant's inability to pay defense, the court stated: Negligently failing to pay the insurance bill does not constitute an inability to obey the court order. Additionally, in the instant case, there is not even a suggestion by the Defendant that he could not afford to pay the small insurance premium as it came due. The trial court did not address the defendant's contention that he did not have the ability to pay the demanded compensatory damages. Finally, the court agreed with the plaintiff's argument that, under Maryland law, compensatory damages could be awarded in a civil contempt action. The court awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $19,311.00 but rejected the request for attorney's fees, stating: The Plaintiff also requests attorney's fees in the amount of $2,461.50. While Maryland does permit an award of attorney's fees in contempt actions, any award is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Because in this case, the Defendant's contempt was negligent, and the issues involved somewhat complex, this Court does not believe that attorney's fees are warranted, and, therefore, none will be ordered. The defendant James appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed in an unreported opinion. Thereafter, we granted the defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari. Dodson v. Dodson, 371 Md. 68, 806 A.2d 679 (2002).