Christopher Wade Moritz v. Iowa District Court for Polk County
15-1744
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Christopher Moritz and Jessica Koenig divorced by decree November 2014; court imputed Moritz income of $20,000 and ordered $417/month child support for three children.
- By May 2015 Moritz was $3,236 in arrears; Koenig sought contempt for willful violation of the support order.
- Moritz had five felony convictions, asserted health issues, was in chapter 13 bankruptcy, and relied primarily on parental loans/allowances for income; he had an agreement with CSRU to pay $50/month beginning March 2015 and made those payments inconsistently.
- At the contempt hearing Moritz testified he could not earn the imputed amount, had limited job-search proof, and was pursuing undeveloped R&D prospects; the district court found his testimony not credible.
- The district court found Moritz willfully disobeyed the support order and sentenced him to thirty days in jail; Moritz sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moritz willfully violated the child support order | Moritz: lacked ability to pay; showed financial hardship and limited earning capacity | Koenig: Moritz failed to meet burden to show inability to pay; income allocation choices show willfulness | Court: Substantial evidence supports willfulness; Moritz did not carry burden of production on inability to pay |
| Whether jail sentence was an abuse of discretion | Moritz: court should have used withholding or other noncustodial sanctions; jail undermines ability to pay | Koenig: jail was necessary to coerce compliance and get money to children | Court: No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably balanced deterrence and coercion and chose 30 days |
| Standard and burden for contempt finding | Moritz: requested high standard to negate willfulness claim | Koenig: contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; once violation shown, burden shifts to alleged contemner to show inability to pay | Court: Confirms criminal-like standard; burden shifts as stated and Moritz failed to produce evidence of inability to pay |
| Scope of appellate review in certiorari | Moritz: district court acted illegally or without substantial evidence | Koenig: appellate review limited to jurisdiction and legality; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence | Court: Reviewed for legal error and substantial evidence; found district court’s factual findings supported and annulled writ |
Key Cases Cited
- Amro v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 429 N.W.2d 135 (Iowa 1988) (contempt actions treated similarly to criminal proceedings)
- Phillips v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 380 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa 1986) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for contempt punishment)
- Ary v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 735 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 2007) (defines willfulness in contempt context)
- Spitz v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 881 N.W.2d 456 (Iowa 2016) (certiorari review for correction of legal error)
- Reis v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 787 N.W.2d 61 (Iowa 2010) (appellate review limited to jurisdiction and legality; substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Ickowitz v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 452 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 1990) (discusses balancing deterrence and coercion when imposing jail for child-support contempt)
- Ervin v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 495 N.W.2d 742 (Iowa 1993) (burden shifts to alleged contemner to produce evidence of inability to pay)