Opinion ID: 427080
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Coercive Purpose.

Text: 34 To the extent the $500 daily fine was intended to be coercive, that is, to compel the Shufflers' compliance with the February judgment, the fine as presently assessed is improper for three distinct reasons. 35 First, to the extent the fine was intended to force Shufflers to pay the $190,000 to Heritage, 5 the fine is unauthorized under Rule 70. The proper means for Heritage to secure compliance with a money judgment is to seek a writ of execution, not to obtain a fine of contempt for the period of non-payment. We recognize that Rule 69(a), by stating that [p]rocess to enforce a judgment for the payment of money shall be a writ of execution, unless the court otherwise directs, Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a) (emphasis added), seemingly leaves open the possibility of securing payment of a money judgment through the imposition of a contempt sanction. Nonetheless, we do not interpret the exception to execution to permit a federal court to enforce a money judgment by contempt or methods other than a writ of execution, except in cases where established principles so warrant. See 7 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice p 69.03 (2d ed. 1982); see Gabovitch v. Lundy, 584 F.2d 559, 560 n. 1 (1st Cir.1978) (equitable remedies, even those permitted by Rule 70, are seldom appropriate aids to execution of a money judgment); Governor Clinton Co. v. Knott, 120 F.2d 149, 153 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed per stipulation, 314 U.S. 701, 62 S.Ct. 50, 86 L.Ed. 561 (1941). Heritage points to no exceptional circumstances or established principles in this case permitting Heritage to gain payment of the February judgment by securing a $500 per day fine. Consequently, to the extent the order of contempt was intended to enforce payment, it cannot be sustained. 36 Second, to the extent the fine was intended to compel the Shufflers to let Heritage foreclose on the two properties, by forcing them to negotiate for release of the automatic stay in the Coastal bankruptcy proceeding, imposition of the fine until sale of the properties or actual payment occurred was unwarranted. The fine should have terminated not upon the earlier of the sale of the properties or the deposit of $190,000 into the escrow but upon the date the automatic stay was released. To permit the contempt sanction to run until the date Heritage actually foreclosed on the properties cannot be justified by the only permissible coercive purpose for the May order, which was to coerce the Shufflers into making the properties available for foreclosure. As we have stated, the Shufflers were not compelled by the February judgment affirmatively to assist in the foreclosure. When the sole coercive purpose of the civil contempt order was satisfied, on April 28, the necessity for any coercive sanction ended, and the sanction should have terminated. See Vincent, 424 F.2d at 129. 37 Finally, if the fine was designed to coerce Shufflers to allow the foreclosure to go forward, the court must, in determining the size and duration of the fine, consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired. United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). Heritage has not pointed to any portion of the record demonstrating that the district court imposed the fine after a reasoned consideration of these criteria. 38