In re the Marriage of Webb
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1390
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Post-dissolution of marriage between Dana L. Christiansen (mother) and Craig B. Webb (father).
- Trial court found mother in contempt for unilaterally arranging a CAT scan/emergency room visit without adequate contact with father.
- Court awarded father remedial attorney fees but did not impose punitive contempt.
- Court found the child’s condition was not an emergency and mother’s contact was inadequate.
- Remedial sanctions require a purge clause; one-time, unpurgeable contempt cannot support a fees award.
- Appeal addresses sufficiency of evidence for contempt and the propriety of the attorney fees award under Rule 107(d)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt finding is supported by the record | Christiansen contends evidence shows she complied. | Webb asserts mother violated the 2007 order by not notifying him before the CAT scan. | Contempt supported by the record. |
| Whether remedial sanctions with attorney fees were properly awarded | Fees were proper as remedial sanctions for contempt. | No purge clause meant no remedial sanctions could be imposed. | Fees reversed due to lack of purge clause. |
| Whether a one-time, unpurgeable act can support a remedial sanctions award | One-time act could be remedied in the future by purge. | Act cannot be purged once completed. | No remedial sanction feasible; fees cannot stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Davis, 252 P.3d 530 (Colo.App.2011) (deference to trial court in contempt decisions; abuse of discretion standard)
- Eichhorn v. Kelley, 111 P.3d 544 (Colo.App.2004) (support for standard of review in contempt)
- Cyr, 186 P.3d 88 (Colo.App.2008) (remedial sanctions require purge and describe purge mechanism)
- In re Estate of Elliott, 993 P.2d 474 (Colo.2000) (remedial sanctions under Rule 107(d)(2))
- In re Marriage of Nussbeck, 949 P.2d 73 (Colo.App.1997) (attorney fees as component of remedial sanctions)
- People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162 (Colo.2006) (Rule 107(d)(2) requires remedial sanctions for attorney fees)
- Denver Post Corp. v. Ritter, 255 P.3d 1083 (Colo.2011) (contextual interpretation of statutory language)
- Herrera v. Herrera, 772 P.2d 676 (Colo.App.1989) (conflicting-evidence standard in contempt affirmed)
- Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072 (Colo.2002) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Glover v. Innis, 252 P.3d 1204 (Colo.App.2011) (statutory interpretation in appellate review)
- Trujillo v. People, 251 P.3d 477 (Colo.App.2010) (interpretation guide for statutory provisions)
- Hatchel v. Lanphere, 170 Colo. 545, 468 P.2d 457 (Colo.1970) (historical context on contempt awards)