Court Opinion

ID: 9525546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:04:45.058977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:29.177551
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The only debt for which imprisonment is constitutional is debt based on fraud. Ind. Const, art. I, § 22. Debt based upon any other ground cannot support imprisonment. It cannot constitutionally be said that a *449debt based upon a support obligation can support imprisonment. It has, of course, properly been held that a support obligation is not a debt, Davis v. State (1985), Ind.App., 481 N.E.2d 434, and can support imprisonment.. However, when a support obligation is “reduced” to a money judgment in the form of A shall recover X number of dollars from B, the support obligation which is “reduced” is transformed into a money judgment, a debt, and the support obligation no longer exists. The process for enforcement of a judgment or a decree for the payment of money is set forth in Ind.Trial Rule 69, and includes execution and proceedings supplemental. Imprisonment is not part of the process. If A has X number of dollars and does not satisfy the judgment against him in favor of B, he may not be imprisoned for contempt of court for simply holding onto his money, because: 1) the Indiana constitution forbids it, Ind. Const, art. I, § 22; and 2) a simple money judgment does not contain a court-imposed obligation, the violation of which could constitute a contempt of court.
Ind.Code § 31-1-11.5-17 sanctions imprisonment for “all orders and awards” contained in a dissolution decree. Contrary to an argument before the Court on the point, this provision does not sanction imprisonment for a money judgment.