B.L. v. A.D., 17-0003

In 2005 A.D. obtained a $500,000 judgment against B.L. for infecting A.D. with HIV. B.L. later received ~ $375,000 from his mother’s estate and did not disclose it or pay the judgment.
B.L. claimed (without corroboration) he anonymously donated the entire inheritance to thousands of charities; the court found no evidence to support this.
In July 2010 the circuit court entered civil contempt and ordered B.L. confined (later modified to home confinement) until he paid $363,000 toward the judgment.
Over the years B.L. filed multiple motions (this is his fifth) to dissolve the contempt order; his latest argued the order lost coercive effect, time made proving donations impossible, and home confinement harmed his health.
The circuit court held a hearing, found B.L. evasive, noted attempts to evade confinement (e.g., purported medical travel used as vacation), and denied the fifth motion.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning B.L. failed to meet his burden to show inability to purge or loss of coercive effect and that the court reasonably concluded B.L. retained substantial assets.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (A.D.)	Defendant's Argument (B.L.)	Held
Whether the civil contempt order has lost its coercive effect	Order remains coercive; contempt aimed to compel payment and benefits plaintiff	Contempt no longer coercive after long delay; passage of time makes proof of donations impossible; home confinement harms health	Court held contempt still coercive; B.L. failed to prove loss of coercive effect
Who bears burden to show inability to purge	Burden on contemnor to prove inability to comply	B.L. must prove he cannot comply or that order is purely punitive	Court reiterated contemnor bears burden and B.L. did not meet it
Credibility/evidence sufficiency of B.L.’s donation claim	Court may discount unsupported, inconsistent assertions; evasive conduct undermines credibility	B.L. claims donations but offers no corroboration and altered explanations	Court found lack of evidence, inconsistent explanations, and evasive conduct supported denial

Carter v. Carter, 196 W. Va. 239, 470 S.E.2d 193 (W.Va. 1996) (standards of review for civil contempt)
State ex rel. Zirkle v. Fox, 203 W. Va. 668, 510 S.E.2d 502 (W.Va. 1998) (burden on contemnor to show inability to comply)
Floyd v. Watson, 163 W. Va. 65, 254 S.E.2d 687 (W.Va. 1979) (civil contempt’s coercive, remedial purpose)
Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1966) (distinguishing civil contempt coercion from punishment)
State ex rel. Robinson v. Michael, 166 W. Va. 660, 276 S.E.2d 812 (W.Va. 1981) (appropriate sanction in civil contempt: indefinite incarceration with purge mechanism)
In re Yoho, 171 W. Va. 625, 301 S.E.2d 581 (W.Va. 1983) (contempt inappropriate where contemnor cannot purge or coercion lost)
Sanders v. Shephard, 163 Ill. 2d 534, 645 N.E.2d 900 (Ill. 1994) (consideration of contemnor credibility and prospective likelihood of compliance)