In re Moroun
295 Mich. App. 312
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- MDOT sued DIBC and Safeco for design/construction breaches on the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project; the trial court ordered DIBC to conform to the February 1, 2010 design order and began civil contempt proceedings against DIBC.
- DIBC’s key executives, Moroun (director) and Stamper (president), were later personally sanctioned with imprisonment to coerce DIBC’s compliance.
- The February 1, 2010 order required DIBC to remove conflicting structures and complete construction per the approved plans; DIBC allegedly failed to comply or completed plans inconsistently with the approved design.
- The trial court found DIBC in contempt in November 2011 and ordered imprisonment of Moroun and Stamper until DIBC fully complied; a separate show-cause process had previously occurred in 2010–2011.
- Moroun and Stamper challenged the imprisonment as improper civil contempt sanctions and sought appellate review; the appellate panel granted relief by partially affirming, vacating, and remanding.
- The Court ultimately held that while imprisonment to coerce compliance was permissible, the specific condition of “full compliance” was too rigid since completion could not be achieved immediately, and remanded with instructions to specify purge actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imprisonment of Moroun and Stamper for civil contempt was proper | MDOT contends imprisonment is valid coercive sanction | Moroun/Stamper argue lack of notice and overbroad confinement | Partially affirmed; imprisonment upheld as coercive, but vacated as to “fully comply” condition and remanded |
| Whether Moroun and Stamper received proper due process notice | DIBC’s executives were responsible for DIBC’s compliance | They were not personally notified of potential individual sanctions | Notice defective; due process requires personal notice to individuals; sanctions vacated to that extent |
| Whether the order against nonparties is appealable as of right | Moroun/Stamper may appeal nonparties’ civil contempt sanction | Civil contempt generally not final; nonparties may appeal per se | Appellants may appeal as of right; nonparties may challenge sanctions |
| Whether the trial court used the least restrictive sanctions | Court should choose least burdensome option to achieve compliance | Other options (receiver, contractor, fines) were inadequate | Courts may use coercive sanctions; in this case imprisonment stayed within discretionary bounds but the “fully complied” condition was overbroad and remanded |
| Whether the judgment should have immediate effect without further proceedings | Judgment appropriate under MCR 7.215(F)(2) for immediate effect | Uncertainty about purge mechanism requires caution | Concluded that immediate effect is appropriate for part of judgment, but remand proceedings required for purge specifics |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Catholic Conference v Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72 (1988) (nonparty rights of appeal in contempt contexts recognized)
- In re Contempt Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 243 Mich. App. 697 (2000) (due-process requirements for indirect contempt show-cause hearings)
- In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich. App. 96 (2003) (abuse-of-discretion review in contempt sanctions)
- Porter v Porter, 285 Mich. App. 450 (2009) (rudimentary due process; notice and defense rights in civil contempt)
- Bagwell v. United Mine Workers of America, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (distinguishes civil contempt coercive purposes; “keys to prison in pocket”)