Opinion ID: 1797981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant's Fine for Civil Contempt.[1]

Text: Appellant alleges that the trial court's action in attaching his salary as a fine for civil contempt was improper. Such assertion is without merit. As tax assessor, Appellant had the duty of performing certain obligations imposed by statute. §§ 40-7-35 and 40-7-36, Code 1975. Without tax assessment there can be no tax collection. Moreover, these are ministerial duties of the tax assessor. State v. Laurendine, 199 Ala. 312, 74 So. 370 (1917). As such, failure to perform them will support an action sounding in mandamus. Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 142 So. 672 (1932); Dillard v. Alexander, 277 Ala. 202, 168 So.2d 233 (1964). The initial pleading filed in the court below on December 27, 1978, alleged that Appellant had failed to perform these duties. This was more than three months after these duties were required by law to be performed. § 40-7-36, Code 1975. Subsequent to hearings on October 23, 1979, and November 19, 1979, the trial court found that Appellant had failed to complete his duties as ordered by the court, and was, therefore, in contempt. The failure to perform an act required by the court for the benefit of an opposing party constitutes civil contempt. Ex parte Abercrombie, 277 Ala. 479, 172 So.2d 43 (1965); Ex parte Griffith, 278 Ala. 344, 178 So.2d 169 (1965), cert. den. sub nom. Griffith v. Board of Commissioners of Alabama Bar, 382 U.S. 988, 86 S.Ct. 548, 15 L.Ed.2d 475 (1966). In such cases the court may exercise its power to punish the contemner or to compensate the injured party. Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 609 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1980). Appellant refers to the court's action as garnishment of his wages. However, only money in the hands of a third person is subject to garnishment. § 6-6-370, Code 1975. Bullock County, as Appellant's employer and a party to this suit, is not a third person within the meaning and intent of the statute. Additionally, Appellant argues that the trial court's procedure violated 15 U.S. C.A. § 1673, or part of the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act. This Act, however, is primarily directed at abuses of garnishment remedies by consumer financial lenders such as loan companies. Brown v. Liberty Loan Corporation of Duval, 392 F.Supp. 1023 (M.D.Fla.1974). Assuming, arguendo, that the action taken by the court was garnishment, the federal statute remains inapplicable to the circumstances of the instant case.