961 N.E.2d 1020
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- B.T. (Father) appeals an order granting K.K. (Stepfather) a change of venue from the judge in a paternity proceeding.
- Mother and Father are N.T.'s parents; Stepfather participated in Mother's contempt of a 2003 paternity order.
- The paternity court later resumed jurisdiction and Father filed a contempt application against Stepfather in 2010.
- Stepfather was served with the contempt application on March 9, 2011, and moved to dismiss and for change of venue.
- The paternity court granted the change of venue from the judge, finding Stepfather became a party upon service and thus entitled to TR 76 relief.
- The issue on appeal is whether service of contempt elevated Stepfather to party status and validly invoked change of venue protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stepfather became a party upon service of contempt | Father contends no party status was conferred on Stepfather by service. | Stepfather argues service makes him a party for contempt purposes and TR 76 applies. | No party status from service; inherent contempt powers apply but TR 76 not triggered. |
| Whether change of venue from the judge applies to nonparties | Father argues change of venue from the judge does not extend to nonparties. | Stepfather argues he is entitled to venue relief as a nonparty subject to contempt. | TR 76 does not extend to nonparties; court must remand for due process protections. |
| Whether the paternity court had inherent power to subject nonparties to contempt | Father contends only parties may be enjoined by contempt power. | Stepfather relies on inherent contempt authority over nonparties. | Indiana courts have inherent contempt power over nonparties. |
| What due process protections apply to indirect contempt of nonparties | Father notes standard contempt due process applies to all. | Stepfather asserts he is entitled to statutory due process protections if contempt proceedings arise. | Indirect contempt requires statutorily prescribed due process protections; remand for such protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen v. Vaughn, 479 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (nonparty with knowledge may be punished for contempt)
- La Grange v. State, 153 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 1958) (inherent contempt power to enforce court orders)
- State v. Heltzel, 552 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. 1990) (contempt proceedings are sui generis; not purely civil/criminal)
- Mitchell v. Stevenson, 677 N.E.2d 551 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (civil vs. criminal contempt; due process distinctions still require protections)