Opinion ID: 2383525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Civil Contempt and the Right to a Jury Trial

Text: Winchenbaugh argues for a jury trial on the basis of Article I, section 20 of the Maine Constitution, that provides in relevant part: In all civil suits, and in all controversies concerning property, the parties shall have the right to a trial by jury, ... Noting that the contempt proceeding against him arises out of a controversy concerning property, Winchenbaugh contends that he is entitled to a jury trial on the issue of his contempt. That contention misperceives the nature of civil contempt. Civil contempt is used to secure obedience to court orders. Wells v. State, 474 A.2d 846, 850 (Me.1984). It is a coercive tool, available to parties who seek to enforce a previously obtained judgment. Id. That enforcement purpose controls the constitutional jury trial analysis even if the underlying controversy requiring a resort to the contempt procedure involves property. The controversy at the core of the contempt proceeding is compliance with a court order. Moreover, the Maine Constitution provides no right to a jury trial in equitable proceedings. Civil contempt is an equitable civil procedural device. R. Goldfarb, THE CONTEMPT POWER 50 (1963). The entry is: Judgments affirmed. Remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to remand to the District Court to amend the award of attorney fees to include attorney fees incurred by the City of Rockland for responding to the appeals to the Superior Court and to this Court. All concurring.