Judy Charney v. Dennis Charney
159 Idaho 62
Idaho2015Background
- Judy and Dennis Charney divorced March 2012; their property settlement was incorporated into the divorce judgment.
- Dennis filed contempt proceedings (five counts) alleging Judy violated the settlement; an evidentiary hearing was set for April 2013.
- On April 9–10, 2013 Dennis moved to dismiss the contempt proceedings; the magistrate court dismissed them without prejudice (Dennis’s counsel had not agreed to prejudice).
- Judy moved for attorney fees and costs under I.C. §§ 7-610, 12-121, and 12-123; the magistrate awarded $8,867.50 under §§ 7-610 and 12-123.
- Dennis appealed to the district court; the district court affirmed the fee award and later awarded Judy $9,297.50 in appellate fees; Dennis’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- On further appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the district court, held that a defendant can be a prevailing party after dismissal without prejudice, upheld the § 7-610 fee award, and awarded Judy fees on this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Judy) | Defendant's Argument (Dennis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prevailing party can obtain § 7-610 fees when contempt proceedings are dismissed without prejudice | Judy argued she prevailed in the contempt proceeding and was entitled to fees under § 7-610 | Dennis argued dismissal without prejudice prevents a finding of prevailing party as a matter of law | Court: A court may find a prevailing party despite dismissal without prejudice; magistrate did not abuse discretion in awarding § 7-610 fees |
| Whether magistrate misapplied law re: statute of limitations for contempt | Judy relied on magistrate’s reasoning that criminal-contempt claims were time-barred | Dennis argued proceedings sought civil contempt (no SOL) and magistrate erred | Court: Four of five counts could have supported only criminal contempt; Idaho misdemeanor contempt has 1-year SOL (I.C. § 19-403(1)); magistrate’s SOL reliance not an abuse |
| Whether district court erred by not addressing alternative statutory basis (I.C. § 12-123) for fees | Judy maintained fee award valid under § 7-610 (primary ground) and alternatively under § 12-123 | Dennis challenged fee entitlement generally | Court: Because § 7-610 award stands, alternative § 12-123 analysis unnecessary |
| Whether district court erred in awarding appellate fees where Judy’s brief placement of § 7-610 request was imperfect | Judy pointed to § 7-610 request in conclusion and argued fees were proper because appeal merely second-guessed trial court | Dennis contended Judy failed to comply with appellate rules re: fee request and insufficiently briefed § 7-610 | Court: Dennis failed to preserve a persuasive objection; district court did not abuse discretion in awarding appellate fees under § 7-610 |
Key Cases Cited
- Parkside Schools, Inc. v. Bronco Elite Arts & Athletics, LLC, 145 Idaho 176, 177 P.3d 390 (2008) (dismissal without prejudice does not preclude opportunity to request attorney fees)
- Rockeller v. Grabow, 139 Idaho 539, 82 P.3d 450 (2003) (standards for appellate review of discretionary rulings)
- Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 137 Idaho 850, 55 P.3d 304 (2002) (distinguishing civil and criminal contempt penalties)
- Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604 (1914) (criminal contempt subject to statute of limitations)
- Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968) (criminal contempt defendants entitled to protection of statute of limitations)