Opinion ID: 1985043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The contempt action.

Text: The parties were unable to agree on the division of some of the tangible personal property in the family residence. On April 26, 1996, Deborah filed an application for rule to show cause asking that William be found in contempt of court for refusing to return to her items that she alleged were personal to her and which were in William's control. Deborah's application acknowledged that absent William's agreement with respect to the jointly-acquired items of property, the same will have to be placed at public auction pursuant to the Order of the court. Deborah's application did not allege that the November 16, 1995 decree was not a final judgment. Instead, she stated that personal property items not agreed upon by the parties were subject to being sold at public auction. On its own motion, the court appointed a special master, see Iowa rule of civil procedure 207, and ordered the special master to investigate the circumstances presented in Deborah's application and report his findings to the court for the purposes of appropriately implementing the court's original decree. The special master made such investigation, attempted to mediate the parties' differences, and filed a report concerning his recommendations for detailed division of eighty-six items of personal property and for appraisal and auction sale of several pieces of valuable crystal. On February 6, 1997, after hearing, the court basically approved the master's report, making some modifications, and stated [a]ny particular items of personal property which cannot be agreed upon within thirty (30) days following filing of this Ruling shall be sold at public auction with each party having the right to bid thereon and the net proceeds to be divided equally between the parties! The court did not rule on whether William should be found in contempt.