Amy Slane v. Stephen Adams
155 Idaho 274
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Father (Adams) was ordered to pay $635/month child support in 2003; custody not adjudicated in that judgment.
- Mother filed contempt motion (March 2010) alleging multiple missed payments; magistrate proceeded on one contempt count for a $635 November 2009 payment.
- Magistrate found Father guilty of that single contempt, sentenced him (30 days, 25 suspended) and placed him on probation with a condition to pay $5,715 in arrears by Dec. 1, 2011.
- Magistrate dismissed Father’s April 20, 2010 motions to modify custody and reduce support because he could not purge contempt and had not shown inability to purge was due to circumstances beyond his control.
- District court affirmed the dismissal (relying on Nab) and awarded mother fees on appeal; Idaho Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a court refuse to hear or dismiss a contemnor’s post‑judgment motions because the contemnor has not purged contempt? | Mother: Nab permits refusing to hear modification motions until contemnor purges contempt; denial is an appropriate contempt sanction. | Father: Denial/dismissal denies access to courts and is not an authorized criminal or civil contempt sanction. | Reversed: denial/dismissal is not an authorized criminal contempt sanction, is not a valid civil sanction here, and violates Idaho Constitution art. I, § 18. |
| Was the magistrate’s action criminal or civil contempt and legally supportable? | Mother: District court treated it as criminal or civil (relying on Nab). | Father: The sanction functioned unconditionally and required payment exceeding the specific count of contempt; thus it cannot be upheld as civil and is not authorized as criminal. | The act was effectively a criminal sanction not authorized to include denial of court access; it also was not a valid civil contempt because the purge condition required more than the adjudicated contempt amount. |
| Can prior Idaho decisions denying court access for contemnors remain controlling? | Mother: Earlier cases allowed conditioning access/dismissal (cited Nab and older cases). | Father: Such precedents conflict with constitutional access and must be overruled to extent inconsistent. | Court overruled Lusty, Hoagland, and Brown to the extent they conflict with this opinion; courts must not deny access for failure to purge contempt. |
| Is Mother entitled to attorney fees on appeal? | Mother: Seeks fees under I.C. §§ 7-610, 12-121 and rules. | Father: Not prevailing party; attorney represented Father pro bono. | Denied: Mother is not prevailing party on appeal; procedural rules cited do not apply on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 137 Idaho 850, 55 P.3d 304 (Idaho 2002) (distinguishes criminal vs civil contempt; conditional vs unconditional sanctions)
- Nab v. Nab, 114 Idaho 512, 757 P.2d 1231 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988) (refusal to hear modification until purge held a civil contempt sanction)
- Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1988) (when civil and criminal relief are both imposed, criminal character controls)
- Embree v. Embree, 85 Idaho 443, 380 P.2d 216 (Idaho 1963) (contempt proceedings must allege each instance separately)
- Rohr v. Rohr, 128 Idaho 137, 911 P.2d 133 (Idaho 1996) (retroactivity of child‑support modification tied to filing date)
- Moon v. Bullock, 65 Idaho 594, 151 P.2d 765 (Idaho 1944) (courts must administer justice without denial, delay, or prejudice)
- Eismann v. Miller, 101 Idaho 692, 619 P.2d 1145 (Idaho 1980) (right of access to courts; limits on abuse of process)