Opinion ID: 1256305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Croton bush

Text: Leander contends that, because the district court found that the LeMays had encroached upon his property, it necessarily follows that the LeMays were in civil contempt insofar as a knowing state of mind, as the district court correctly noted, is not necessary for a determination of civil contempt. Thus, Leander insists the district court erred in concluding that the LeMays were not in civil contempt. Leander's argument misstates the law of civil contempt. As we previously discussed, to establish that the LeMays were in civil contempt, Leander carries the burden of establishing the requirements of the Allied Vision test. The district court's findings support Leander's establishment of Allied Vision 's first two requirements. First, the Injunction is clear and unambiguous on its face as to the prohibited conduct; that is, both the LeMays and Leander were prohibited from entering onto the premises, including the yards, of the other. Second, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that the LeMays had violated the Injunction by placing gravel around the croton and on [Leander's] boundary line, thereby encroaching onto Leander's property. However, Leander failed to establish the third requirement of Allied Vision that the LeMays have not diligently attempted to comply with the Injunction in a reasonable manner. The district court found that, according to the survey, [the LeMays] did encroach upon [Leander's] property to a minor degree by placing gravel around a croton tree and on [Leander's] boundary line, but that these actions do not constitute a violation of [the Injunction]. Based upon these findings, we hold that Leander failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the LeMays had not diligently attempted to comply with the Injunction in a reasonable manner or, in other words, were not in substantial compliance with the Injunction. Furthermore, although a knowing state of mind is not required for a civil contempt citation, the facts that the LeMays had no knowledge of the actual boundary at the time of the encroachment and had a good faith belief that the croton was located on their property further support the district court's conclusion that the LeMays had diligently attempted to comply with the Injunction. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the LeMays did not commit any acts of civil contempt.