Court Opinion

ID: 9645341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:21:35.140062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:30.950706
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Judge
(concurring in result).
I concur in the result reached — quashing the preliminary rule in prohibition.
However, I do not believe the court should decide in this case whether the trial court has inherent power to adjudicate civil contempt in proceedings such as this. I say this because civil contempt in this type of matter is now provided by section 452.345 and, in my opinion, the proceedings should be governed by that statute. This statute, in my opinion, works a modification of that part of the holding in Coughlin v. Ehlert, 39 Mo. 285 (1866), wherein the court held in effect that the court could not utilize imprisonment on civil contempt to coerce payment of alimony. Subject to the views I have expressed in my dissent in State ex rel. Stanhope v. Pratt et al., 533 S.W.2d 567 (Mo. banc 1976), and Teefey v. Teefey, 533 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. banc 1976), I concur in result.