Opinion ID: 2366364
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The superior court's written order

Text: The written order, which was dated July 30, 2008 but not mailed until August 5, directed Whittle to provide a mutually agreeable date for the conducting of an inspection within 30 days from the date of this order. On August 19 Whittle filed a motion for reconsideration. On September 2, before the superior court had ruled on that motion, Whittle agreed to an inspection of his property, informing Weber that he would allow the inspection on November 14th through November 25th 2008 (excluding weekends & holidays), for one day and requesting that Weber provide the date, time period, name of [the expert who would be coming], & the certification of that expert. The question before us, then, is whether Whittle complied with the superior court's order by providing within 30 days of the court's written order acceptable dates for the inspection or whether the order required him to schedule the inspection for a date that fell within the 30-day period. In his opposition to Weber's motion to hold him in contempt, Whittle asserted that he has tried to provide a mutually agreeable date for the conducting of an inspection, & it has been done within the 30 days specified in the court's order. He argued that [i]f the court would have meant to have the inspection within the 30 days period of time, then it would surely have said just that. During the contempt hearing, Whittle repeated that he understood within 30 days to refer to the act of providing a date for the inspection and further explained, I [have] done it way  exactly the way that I understood it. Weber's lawyer explained that he understood within 30 days to refer to the date of the inspection itself and argued that his was the only interpretation consistent with the September 29 deadline for expert reports. As Weber acknowledged in a previous court filing, however, the language of the order, on its face, permits both Whittle's and Weber's interpretations. The superior court declined to hold Whittle in contempt, presumably because it was persuaded that Whittle had an honest, alternative interpretation of the order. Thus, Whittle did not willfully fail to comply with the superior court's written order.