Opinion ID: 1983706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rutherford v. Rutherford

Text: Theodore E. Rutherford and Willa Dean Rutherford, then husband and wife, entered into a separation and property settlement agreement in January 1982, under which, among other things, Theodore Rutherford agreed to pay Willa Dean Rutherford $400.00 per week for the support and education of their two minor children. In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, on March 23, 1982, Willa Dean Rutherford was granted a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, with the decree embodying the requirement that Theodore Rutherford make weekly child support payments of $400.00. In April 1982, Mrs. Rutherford filed a petition to hold her former husband in contempt for failing to make child support payments under the decree, and an order to show cause was entered. The matter was heard by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on May 11, 1982. At the beginning of the hearing, after the plaintiff's attorney identified himself, the following colloquy occurred: COURT: And your name, sir? DEFENDANT: Theodore Rutherford. COURT: Mr. Rutherford, are you representing yourself? DEFENDANT: I can't afford an attorney. COURT: All right. Then I assume you're representing yourself. Do you understand why you're here? DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. COURT: Why are you here? DEFENDANT: I'm here because I can't pay her the $400 a week child support. COURT: Well, you're here because they're asking that you be held in contempt. DEFENDANT: The Court ordered me to pay it.... COURT: I understand that. DEFENDANT: ... and I can't. As in the Katzenberger case, nothing was said to Mr. Rutherford during the hearing suggesting that he had a right to counsel. The plaintiff testified at the May 11th hearing that the defendant made weekly payments in January 1982, that since February 1, 1982, he has paid her only $300.00, and that the arrearage amounted to $5,300.00. She further testified that the reason given to her by the defendant for not making the payments was that the defendant did not have the money and that he had lost his business. The defendant, under questioning from the court, then testified that he had lost his business in early March 1982, that he had been unemployed since that time, that he had been seeking employment without success, and that he had been evicted from where he had lived because the $300  the last $300 I gave her was my rent money. Mr. Rutherford further stated that he was presently living rent-free with a friend, that he had sold just about everything I owned to just survive to now, and that I lost my attorney 'cause I couldn't pay him for the work he had already done. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney asked Mr. Rutherford whether he sold drugs, and the defendant replied that he did not. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court asked the plaintiff's attorney now how can I hold him in contempt? The attorney responded by suggesting that Mr. Rutherford was in contempt for failing to make all of the payments for the period prior to early March when he became unemployed. In addition the plaintiff's attorney, while stating that he was in no position at this time to introduce any evidence, stated his belief that Mr. Rutherford has income from less conventional sources. And I believe if the Court would impose him in contempt that we would find that money would begin flowing. With regard to the suggestions that he had any income and that he had been dealing in drugs, the defendant in rebuttal stated that the allegations were totally untrue. The hearing ended with the court stating that it accept[ed] Mr. Rutherford's testimony concerning his present situation, but that the defendant was in contempt because of his failure to make payments prior to the time in early March when he became unemployed. On May 12, 1982, an order was entered sentencing the defendant to the Anne Arundel County detention center for a period of ninety days, commencing May 26, 1982, with the defendant being able to purge himself by paying the arrearage. Sometime after the May 12th order, an attorney in the Public Defender's Office began to represent the defendant, and, on May 21, 1982, the defendant's attorney filed a motion to revise the May 12th order. As a result of the motion, the court extended the date for Mr. Rutherford to begin serving his sentence until August 30, 1982, if he had not purged the contempt by that time. Otherwise, the May 12th order was left intact. The defendant Rutherford, represented by the Public Defender's Office, took an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. As in the Katzenberger case, this Court granted Rutherford's petition for a writ of certiorari prior to argument in the Court of Special Appeals. [3]