Court Opinion

ID: 9696477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:49:05.102762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:22.668711
License: Public Domain

DONIELSON, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority announces a new interpretation of sections 598.22, .23, and .24 which limits the use of contempt “for enforcement of orders or judgments relating to temporary or permanent support payments” only when the “provision has a reasonable relationship to support of the spouse or child.” I believe this interpretation is incorrect and far too limiting.
The crux of the issue we face is very similar to one over which the jurisdictions are split: whether failure to make payments pursuant to a property division provision of a dissolution decree is enforceable through contempt. See Yeager v. Yeager, *114622 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Mo.App.1981). The rationale of these cases is applicable even though most involve an attack on such use of contempt under the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for a debt. The court in Harris v. Harris, 58 Ohio St.2d 303, 309-10, 390 N.E.2d 789, 793 (1979), pointed out, “a growing number of states will enforce decretal property settlement provisions by contempt proceedings and considers such enforcement constitutionally sound.” The parties to a dissolution are properly before the court when the decree embodying the property settlement is entered. The decree is a command of the court to a party to make payments, or convey certain property. The Nevada court is quoted extensively in Yeager in support of the proposition that a party refusing to abide by the property division provisions of the decree should be treated no differently than a party who refuses to abide by the alimony or child support provisions:
... the Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt. But it is uniformly held, and such is the [true] doctrine, that the decree is an order of the court to the husband, compelling him to support his wife by paying certain sums, and thus perform a public as well as a marital duty. Such a decree is something more than an ordinary debt or judgment for money. It is a personal order to the husband, similar to an order of the court to one of the officers or to his attorney. The imprisonment is not alone to enforce the payment of money, but to punish the disobedience of the party; and the order is not, therefore, a debt, within the meaning of the Constitution.
622 S.W.2d at 342 (quoting Ex Parte Phillips, 43 Nev. 368,187 P. 311 (1920)). I agree with the jurisdictions of this persuasion and believe, as did the court in Harris, that “such command or order of the court in reference to certain property of the parties should be enforceable by way of the statutory power of contempt.” Harris, 58 Ohio St.2d at 311, 390 N.E.2d at 794.
The use of the contempt power in this manner ensures that the termination of the marital relationship results in an equitable and efficient settlement between the parties. It is merely one tool in the arsenal of those used to enforce judicial decrees. Nevertheless, it is the simplest, least expensive and least time consuming of those mechanisms. I would not foreclose the judge’s power to employ the contempt proceeding in juxtaposition with the lien, attachment and garnishment procedures. Of course, the contempt power as well as these others must be employed with care to protect the rights of the parties. The record reveals that such care was taken in the instant case.
I also believe that there is no real necessity of delving into the question of imprisonment for a debt. The rationale of Harris that the contempt power is used to enforce the court order in total, vitiates the need to do so; the property division provisions are in the same legal vein as are the child support and alimony provisions which have always been held to be enforceable by use of the contempt procedure. Indeed, Justice Traynor, dissenting from the California majority view holding property division provisions not enforceable by contempt proceedings noted that:
The majority opinion concedes that an alimony award based on the agreement of the parties is enforcible by contempt since it is sufficiently related to the statutory duty of support incident to the marriage relationship as to be outside the constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt. Cal. Const, art. I, § 15 Rights and duties with respect to property growing out of the marriage relationship and crystallized in a court order are likewise outside the scope of that provision. Such an order has not less a special character because it is based on an agreement of the parties than an alimony award based on such an agreement. Indeed, in some states the very theory underlying use of contempt to enforce awards of alimony is that alimony is itself an adjustment of property rights.
Phillips v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 95 Idaho 404 at 407, 509 P.2d 1325 at 1328 (quoting Bradley v. Superior Court, 48 *115Cal.2d 509, 523-24, 310 P.2d 634, 643 (1957) (Traynor, J., dissenting)) (citations omitted).
In addition, there are grave practical problems which may result if we refuse to allow the trial court to use its contempt power to enforce these provisions. The parties will be forced to utilize more costly and time consuming enforcement mechanisms, which may, in turn, jeopardize their ability to vindicate their rights under the decree. For example, assume that, under the decree, A is to pay the debts of the parties, has the resources to do so but refuses. Assume further that B is sued by a creditor and the amount is small. If B is allowed to seek enforcement through the contempt procedure, the rights are vindicated easily. Under the majority view, however, he would be forced to go through the lien, attachment and garnishment procedures involving costly, time consuming, and court clogging litigation. Indeed, if the amount is small, it may make little sense, under a cost benefit analysis, to engage in these procedures at all. Accordingly, I believe the wrong would go uncorrected in far too many instances. The majority’s interpretation of chapter 598 would encourage this result.
In the instant case the parties were properly before the court when the decree was entered and the petitioner fully acknowledges the $4,000 obligation as due and owing; he did not appeal. The only question is whether contempt is an appropriate method to enforce payment of this obligation. I believe that contempt is one of the appropriate methods of enforcement under chapter 598. Section 598.23 specifically refers to a party against whom a final decree has been entered who may be cited for contempt if he “willfully disobey[s] the same or secrete[s] his property” (emphasis added). Section 598.24 refers to “the party entitled to support payments, or an interested party” (emphasis added). This language contemplates that the power of contempt is not to be limited to those who have been awarded spousal or child support, but is available to enforce the property division provisions as well.
I believe the majority’s reliance on Iowa Code § 626.1 is misplaced. That section, found in the chapter dealing with executions, by its terms refers to “[¿judgments or orders requiring the payment of money, or the delivery of the possession of property ... . ” If the majority were correct in applying § 626.1 to dissolution decrees then, by its terms, it would also apply to payment of money like support payments; nothing omits support payments from the execution statute. I believe, however, that this section affords the party to a dissolution one other mechanism with which to enforce the decree. Indeed, chapter 626 deals more with the mechanics of execution than on the precise instances in which the remedy is available. The provisions of chapter 598 govern dissolution decrees and give the additional remedy of contempt. The language of those sections do not omit property division provisions and I do not believe this court can take the liberty of so interpreting them.
I stress again that we must be cognizant of the fact that support awards are often themselves an adjustment of property rights which have a reasonable relationship to the support of the spouse or child. I disagree with the majority’s strained attempts to make a distinction to the contrary. As the court in Harris noted “[fjor the purpose of enforcement, both the [support] and property settlement provisions of the decree are orders of the court, and represent more than a debt of one spouse to another.” Harris, 58 Ohio St.2d at 311, 390 N.E.2d at 794. Because I believe that, under chapter 598, contempt is one of the appropriate methods for enforcing these provisions of a dissolution decree, I respectfully dissent.