Opinion ID: 2225574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Scope of Court's Powers in a Contempt Proceeding

Text: Before discussing whether this is a final, appealable order, we address R.K.'s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable relief to SFAC through its purge plan. Obviously, if the court lacked jurisdiction to enter this order, we must reverse the order and dismiss the appeal. Woven into the fabric of our case law are rules prohibiting both compensatory and equitable relief to a party injured by a contemnor's violation of a court's order or judgment. As noted, we relied on Dunning in Smeal I to conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose its first purge plan and had therefore entered an extrajudicial award of equitable relief. The rule against granting equitable relief emerged from our rule that a court cannot grant compensatory relief to an injured party in a contempt proceeding. But these rules have put trial courts in a judicial straightjacket and impeded their inherent authority to remedy a civil contempt. So, while we do not agree with R.K. that the court's purge plan on remand again granted equitable relief to SFAC, we conclude that R.K.'s argument raises a broader jurisdictional problem. We believe our rule that courts lack jurisdiction to grant compensatory or equitable relief in a contempt proceeding to enforce an injunction is contrary to Neb. Rev.Stat.  25-1072 (Reissue 2008). It also conflicts with a court's inherent contempt powers. In overlooking  25-1072, we have sowed confusion regarding a court's contempt powers. The Legislature has not amended  25-1072 since 1929. The statute sets forth the relief that a court may order for a party's contempt of an injunction: An injunction granted by a judge may be enforced as the act of the court. Disobedience of an injunction may be punished as a contempt by the court.... [A] party guilty of [contempt] may be required, in the discretion of the court or judge, to pay a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, for the use of the county, to make immediate restitution to the party injured, and give further security to obey the injunction; or, in default thereof, he may be committed to close custody, until he shall fully comply with such requirements, or be otherwise legally discharged.