Holkesvig v. Welte
809 N.W.2d 323
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Holkesvig appealed a district court contempt finding and $1,000 remedial sanction against him for filing pleadings during appeal.
- District court found contempt without a hearing, and ordered remedial sanctions under ND Century Code § 27-10-01.4(1)(a).
- Defendants sought sanctions for violating an injunctive order pending appeal and requested a hearing under ND Ct. Rule 3.2.
- District court issued broad injunction barring Holkesvig from new filings unless leave of court, and warned of punitive/remedial sanctions for any violation.
- Welte, Larson, and Smith appealed the contempt order; the Supreme Court remanded for a proper hearing on contempt.
- The issue before the court on remand is whether Holkesvig intentionally disobeyed the injunctive order and whether a hearing is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holkesvig was entitled to a hearing before contempt sanctions | Holkesvig entitled to notice and hearing per §27-10-01.3(1)(a) | Court impliedly determined contempt without new hearing due to prior show cause | Remand for a hearing on contempt |
| Whether the district court properly imposed remedial sanctions without a hearing | Remedial sanction appropriate to compensate costs, but requires notice/hearing | Hearing would cause delay; show cause already held | Improper without notice and hearing; remand for hearing |
| Whether the injunctive order outstanding on appeal was enforceable and binding | Order remained in effect and Holkesvig was obligated to obey | Dispute over validity; appeal pending | Order enforceable; failure to comply constitutes contempt |
| Whether the district court properly retained jurisdiction to punish contempts during appeal | Court had ongoing authority to sanction for contempt during appeal | Jurisdiction limited; may rely on existing orders | Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt during appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 2003 ND 96 (2003 ND) (court retains jurisdiction to hold contempt during appeal)
- Bertsch v. Bertsch, 2007 ND 168 (2007 ND) (order must be obeyed pending appeal unless stayed or reversed)
- Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 1999 ND 146 (1999 ND) (contempt must follow proper procedures; obedience required while appealed)
- State v. Sevigny, 2006 ND 211 (2006 ND) (intentional disobedience constitutes contempt; stay/reverse governs)
- Prchal v. Prchal, 2011 ND 62 (2011 ND) (contempt requires clear, satisfactory showing of violation)
- Millang v. Hahn, 1998 ND 152 (1998 ND) (procedural requirements for contempt; hearing required for remedial sanctions)
- Endersbe v. Endersbe, 555 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1996) (distinguishes remedial vs punitive sanctions)
- Delkamp v. Delkamp, 2006 ND 257 (2006 ND) (necessity of notice/hearing for contempt absent actual presence of court)
- Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 538 N.W.2d 197 (N.D. 1995) (valid contempt citation despite some procedural gaps where notice/hearing occurred)
- Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 138 (2010 ND) (informational precedent on sanctions in contempt)
- Dietz v. Dietz, 2007 ND 84 (2007 ND) (reversal/remand when contempt hearing denied)