COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 4, 2009 David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Brown, C.J.,
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is another in a series of William
S. Roush, Jr.’s appeals of post-divorce judgment proceedings. He appeals an order finding him in contempt
for willful nonpayment of maintenance to his former wife, Nancy Hanna Roush. We affirm the order and deny frivolous appeal
costs to
¶2 Given the case’s familiarity to all involved, we state only the facts essential to this appeal. William and Nancy divorced in 2004 after a twenty-year marriage. The judgment was not appealed but there ensued numerous post-judgment motions and hearings related to enforcing the child support and maintenance orders.
¶3 In May 2007, William was found in contempt for willfully failing to pay maintenance.[1] The circuit court sentenced him to six months in jail, but stayed the sentence and set up two purge conditions: (1) regular, timely payments on his maintenance obligation and (2) reimbursement of the security fund set up by the divorce judgment. William failed to meet the conditions, a capias issued and he was arrested on October 26, 2007. At the November 6 hearing, the court ordered William jailed if he did not satisfy the purge conditions by November 9. He made no payments and was incarcerated with work-release privileges. He still paid nothing. His work-release privileges were revoked on January 1, 2008, when he reported back to the Huber facility on New Year’s Eve smelling of alcohol and testing positive for it.
¶4
¶5 On appeal, William first argues that he should not have been
found in contempt of court for failure to pay because a person may be held in
contempt only if the failure to pay is willful.
See Roellig v. Roellig, 146
¶6 William contends that he hardly can be expected to earn an
income and satisfy his obligations while in jail. Indeed, for a finding of civil contempt, the
person must have the power to do the thing ordered. Schroeder v. Schroeder, 100
¶7 William’s argument is circular, or perhaps backwards. He himself testified that he grossed $66,000 or $67,000 in 2007. He also testified that he had not made any maintenance payment since March 2005 that was not a condition of a purge. The circuit court found that, even when in custody, William was working under Huber release until January 2008 and that, despite gross receipts of some $9,000 between October and December of 2007, “not $1 was ever paid on this obligation, not $1.” It also found that William had done nothing to broaden his practice or, in fact, “anything but contrive his circumstances so as not to pay this obligation.” The court concluded that William’s failure to pay was not due to inability, but to a purposeful exhaustion of moneys in “flagrant defiance of [a] court order.” Thus, William may be less able to pay because he is in custody but he is in custody because he refused to pay.
¶8 The circuit court is far better positioned than are we to
determine whether or not the act is contemptous. Schroeder, 100
¶9 The circuit court made the requisite findings for
contempt. Its findings that William is
able to pay and that his refusal is willful and done with intent to avoid
payment are not clearly erroneous. See Rose,
171
¶10 Finally, William argues that the circuit court itself called
the sanction punitive and punitive sanctions are impermissible in a remedial
contempt proceeding.
¶11 Second, we agree with
¶12 Determining the type of remedial sanctions to impose for
contempt is a discretionary determination.
Benn, 230
¶13 As a final matter,
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
[1] No issues remain as to child support.
[2] William explains at length his difficulties in securing new employment and/or establishing a solo practice, either of which would generate earnings significantly less than the $145,000 income originally imputed to him. He also indicates he has health issues for which he has been hospitalized. These matters might be better suited to a motion to modify maintenance based on a substantial change of circumstances.
[3] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless noted.