Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland; January 28, 1976; Maryland; State Appellate Court
Judge Powers delivered the Court's opinion regarding an appeal from a contempt order issued by Judge Kenneth C. Proctor in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The opinion begins by outlining the legal framework for contempt, referencing the case State v. Roll and Scholl, which clarifies that contempts can be classified as civil or criminal, and may be either direct or constructive. Criminal contempt involves actions that undermine the court's authority, while civil contempt focuses on enforcing private parties' rights and ensuring compliance with court orders. Civil contempt penalties are remedial and allow for purging, whereas criminal contempt penalties are punitive for past actions and do not require purging. The required proof for civil contempt is a preponderance of evidence, while for criminal contempt it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Maryland Rules governing contempt cases do not differentiate between civil and criminal contempts, while definitions for direct and constructive contempt clarify that direct contempt occurs in the court's presence, and constructive contempt occurs outside of it. The case involves a divorce decree issued on May 16, 1973, which included custody and alimony orders. A "Petition For Contempt Citation" was filed by the appellee, Mary R. Garland, on December 23, 1974, leading to a Show Cause Order from the court, which was not initially served. A subsequent order was issued on January 30, 1975, directing Thomas A. Garland to respond by February 14, 1975, after proper service of the petition and order.
Timely service of the order and petition was completed, leading Mr. Garland to file a combined answer and motion to dismiss. Although there is no formal record of a hearing notice, it is clear that a hearing was scheduled for 3 March 1975, of which Mr. Garland was aware. A transcript from 4 March 1975 shows that a finding of contempt was made, prompting the appeal. Mrs. Garland, the nominal appellee, did not submit a brief or make arguments in this court.
Mr. Garland argued that the contempt order was illegal for failing to comply with Rule P4, asserting that the petition did not properly allege his fault or deliberate non-compliance with the court order. He claimed the order was invalid under Rule 324 b 3 for requiring a response in less than 10 days. In response to the allegations, Mr. Garland stated that any inability to comply was not intentional.
The court concluded that Mr. Garland was charged with constructive civil contempt, detailing the procedure outlined in Rule P4, which includes who may initiate contempt proceedings, requirements for a show cause order, and service protocols. The court emphasized that if a defendant answers, a hearing is set; otherwise, it proceeds ex parte. It also noted that the court could appoint a prosecutor for the proceedings and that the issuing judge is typically disqualified from presiding unless the contempt involves failure to obey a civil order.
The appellant posed the question of whether constructive contempt can be adjudicated without adherence to Maryland Rules regarding pleadings and hearings, to which the court indicated the answer is negative. Instead, it rephrased the question to assess whether there was substantial compliance with the rules and sufficient evidence for a contempt finding.
Appellant did not argue on appeal that the initial petition was insufficient due to a lack of an allegation regarding his ability to pay, nor did he claim a due process violation based on the show cause order requiring an answer within eight days instead of ten, as stipulated in Rule 324 b 3. He also did not contest the absence of a specified time and place for the hearing in the show cause order, as required by Rule P4 b 1 (b). Although a hearing was not held on the scheduled date of March 3, 1975, discussions occurred between the parties and Judge Proctor regarding the case, resulting in a proposed payment plan for arrears. It is indicated that a tentative agreement was made, with Judge Proctor requiring Mr. Garland's personal appearance the following day to formalize the agreement. The proceedings leading to the March 4, 1975 hearing were found to be in substantial compliance with due process requirements, as established in prior cases. During the March 4 hearing, it was confirmed that the arrearage totaled $3,685, with an initial payment of $1,000 due that day and a subsequent $200 payment due on March 24. The payment structure also included provisions for future payments to address both current obligations and the remaining arrearage.
Mr. Garland expressed his inability to promise a payment of $200.00 weekly, claiming it exceeded his earnings. Judge Proctor indicated that Garland had a choice regarding payments for his $3,685 arrears and emphasized a proposal made by Mr. Glasgow aimed at alleviating Garland's situation. Garland provided a 17-page handwritten statement he wished to keep confidential but was instructed to summarize its contents. He referenced other financial obligations but was given ample opportunity to present his case. Ultimately, Judge Proctor found Garland in contempt of court, sentencing him to six months in Baltimore County Jail, with the possibility of release if he purged the contempt.
The court proceedings, although not strictly following standard procedures, permitted Garland to express his defense. Previous case law underscores that a defendant in contempt proceedings must demonstrate an inability to pay; the court must assess whether incarceration is justified based on the defendant's financial capacity. The referenced case, Johnson v. Johnson, illustrates the necessity for the court to consider a defendant's financial situation before imposing incarceration for non-payment of support obligations.
Imprisonment for contempt aims to enforce compliance with court orders; however, if an individual can demonstrate a valid defense, such as an unintentional inability to comply, imprisonment is inappropriate. In this case, Mr. Garland was given the chance to prove he lacked the means to fulfill his financial obligation but did not satisfy Judge Proctor's requirements. The court upheld Judge Proctor's determination as supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous, as per Maryland Rule 1086. The sentence imposed was six months in the Baltimore County Jail, but the court noted that the clerk failed to implement Judge Proctor’s directive allowing Mr. Garland to purge the contempt. Previous case law, specifically McDaniel v. McDaniel, reinforced that a contemnor in a civil contempt case must be afforded the opportunity to purge. Consequently, the court ordered the correction of the docket entry and commitment to align with the judicial order. The appeal was affirmed, with the case remanded for these corrections and the appellant responsible for costs. Mr. Garland was served the order on February 6, 1975, and filed his answer 12 days later on February 18, 1975.
