Background

• Case: Utah Court of Appeals memorandum decision (2012) involving Dickman Family Properties, Inc. v. White; witnesses: Mark Wright; venue: Fourth District, Heber; judge: Derek P. Pullan; civil dispute underlying summary judgment motion; witness declaration contradicted at deposition; Whites move for order to show cause for contempt for false declaration; district court held contempt criminal, required beyond a reasonable doubt; declaration struck; contempt proceeding dismissed; Whites appeal alleging civil contempt and different standard of proof; issue preservation concerns; appellate court affirms.
• Whites had sought contempt relief and attorney fees; district court treated the contempt as criminal and denied civil remedy; the court analyzed whether the proceeding should be civil or criminal based on purpose and standard of proof.
• The appellate court emphasized that the determination of civil versus criminal contempt rests in the trial court’s discretion and that the issue was not preserved for appeal.
• The district court’s burden and findings were reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to factual findings.
• Concluded that the district court’s classification as criminal was within its discretion; affirmed dismissal of the contempt proceeding.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Shipman v. Evans, 2004 UT 44 (Utah 2004) (distinguishes civil vs. criminal contempt and appellate review scope)
• Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (defines civil vs. criminal contempt based on purpose of order)
• 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72 (Utah 2004) (preservation requirements for appellate review of contempt issues)