Caldwell v. Caldwell, 341 S.W.3d 734

Dissolution decree ordered maintenance of $2,500/month and debts/fees allocations; Husband to defend, indemnify property obligations.
Wife filed a Motion for Contempt on April 6, 2010 for noncompliance with the dissolution order.
June 21, 2010 contempt hearing: Husband testified to income of about $83,000/year (part-time work) plus Army Reserve pay; claimed CGP income in 2008–2009 but currently no salary.
Husband testified monthly income exceeded expenses by $900–$1,000; bank accounts held about $900 (checking) and $200 (savings).
Trial court entered Judgment and Order (late 2009 order) imposing $22,500 in back maintenance, debt payments, and attorney’s fees with 9% interest, due by August 10, 2010.
August 27, 2010 contempt/commitment order imprisoned Husband until purge of contempt; Husband appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence of ability to purge contempt	Caldwell: no evidence of ability to purge; income/assets inadequate.	Caldwell: trial court failed to prove he could purge; assets/clear income not established.	No substantial evidence of ability to purge; facially insufficient.
Whether the judgments contained adequate findings of fact	Caldwell: judgments state conclusions without supporting facts.	Caldwell: same—no factual support.	Judgments lacked required factual findings; facially insufficient.

Roark v. Roark, 723 S.W.2d 439 (Mo.App. E.D.1986) (requires explicit findings to support contempt judgment)
Gerau v. Gerau, 927 S.W.2d 441 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (abuse of discretion standard in civil contempt; need substantial evidence)
In re Brown, 12 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (ability to purge must be shown where imprisonment for nonpayment is at issue)
O'Hare v. Permenter, 113 S.W.3d 287 (Mo.App. E.D.2003) (avoid imprisonment when issues are not essential to disposition)
State v. Kinkead, 983 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1998) (principle on essential issues and disposition)