BMO Harris Bank National Ass'n v. Bluff
229 Ariz. 511
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Myers sought to prevent BMO from trustee's sales of four Sedona parcels; TRO issued Feb. 22, 2011.
- TRO was reinstated pending appeal if Myers filed timely notice of appeal and posted supersedeas bond.
- BMO canceled original notices and issued new notices curing alleged deficiencies.
- Myers moved for contempt; trial court found BMO violated the reinstated TRO and sanctioned with fees.
- This court later dismissed the appeal as moot; trial court ordered further sanctions against BMO.
- BMO filed a special action challenging the contempt finding for anticipatory conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a court hold anticipatory contempt for future-intent to disobey an order? | Myers argues express intent to violate the TRO proves contempt. | BMO contends intent alone does not violate the order until actual disobedience occurs. | Anticipatory contempt not permitted; express intent alone insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoddard v. Donahoe, 224 Ariz. 152 (App. 2010) (contempt review via special action)
- Ong Hing v. Thurston, 101 Ariz. 92 (1966) (contempt categories; civil contempt framework)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) (anticipatory contempt discouraged; burden-shifting principle)
- In re McConnell, 370 U.S. 230 (1962) (no anticipatory contempt for statements of intent)
- United States v. Johnson, 736 F.2d 358 (6th Cir. 1984) (no anticipatory contempt for future disobedience)
- United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950) (no anticipatory contempt doctrine)
- Kirk v. Kirk, 875 N.E.2d 125 (Oh. App. 2007) (anticipatory contempt rejected)
- In re Contempt of Dougherty, 413 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. 1987) (no anticipatory contempt for professed intent)