Meckem v. Carter, 323 P.3d 637

Carters and Meckems own adjacent tracts; Carters hold appurtenant easement across Meckem property for a 20‑foot road, described in 1979 and across the Dubois Heights/Solitude Road intersection.
Meckems locked gates on both roads and placed a utility box and septic leach field within or near the easement, hindering Carters’ use for hauling logs to their property.
In 2012 Carters sought declaratory judgment, mandatory injunction to remove obstructions, and a permanent injunction; Meckems counterclaimed seeking rights to move the easement or use an alternate route.
Trial court held a merits hearing, issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in August 2012, concluding Carters’ easement extends 20 feet and that the Dubois Heights Road presently exists as described, with obstruction to be removed.
March 22, 2013 Carters moved for an order to show cause; district court held Meckems in contempt for failing to remove obstructions at the Dubois Heights/Solitude Road intersection and issued remedies including a 250‑foot removal area and daily $100 penalties until obstructions were removed.
Appellants appealed, challenging both contempt finding and the $100/day penalty; the court affirmed contempt but reversed the daily penalty as improper civil contempt detached from actual damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the contempt order amend the judgment beyond Rule 60(a)?	Meckems: order amended the location/width of easement and expanded 250‑foot area.	Carters: order clarified existing judgment; no substantive modification.	Order did not modify the judgment; clarified it within proper scope.
Was the contumacious conduct proven by clear and convincing evidence?	Carters: Meckems willfully obstructed the easement by placing fields and utilities.	Meckems: obstructions were not within the described easement boundary.	Carters proved civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence; willful disobedience found.
Is the $100 per day penalty a proper civil contempt remedy?	Carters: penalties justified to coerce compliance with the lawful order.	Meckems: penalty constitutes a punitive fine inappropriate for civil contempt.	The $100 per day penalty cannot stand; reversed to the extent it imposes a daily fine.

Tafoya v. Tafoya, 309 P.3d 1236 (Wyo. 2013) (two-step Rule 60(a) inquiry for clerical corrections)
Shindell v. Shindell, 322 P.3d 1270 (Wyo. 2014) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence)
Walker v. Walker, 311 P.3d 170 (Wyo. 2013) (compensatory contempt may require proof of actual damages)
Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (U.S. 2011) (cannot impose punishment in civil contempt when noncompliance is unavoidable)
Horn v. Dist. Court, 647 P.2d 1368 (Wyo. 1982) (criminal contempt fines are punitive; civil contempts use coercive remedies)
Stephens v. Lovitt, 239 P.3d 634 (Wyo. 2010) (civil contempt sanctions may be coercive and forfeiture considerations)