Metzger v. Metzger, 958 N.W.2d 715

Justin and Hope Metzger reached a custody/visitation settlement at a January 2019 divorce hearing; the court orally approved the agreement on the record and ordered compliance.
The parties later signed a written marital settlement agreement conforming to the oral terms, which the circuit court incorporated into its February 22, 2019 judgment and decree.
The agreement granted Justin ten weeks of summer visitation; in June 2019 Hope refused to return the child after a weekend, denying Justin remaining summer time.
Justin personally served a motion for an order to show cause (contempt) after Hope’s attorney declined to represent her at the show-cause proceeding.
The circuit court denied contempt relief, ruling Hope lacked requisite notice because she was not personally served with the judgment and that the signed agreement alone was not a court order; Justin appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appeal is moot	Justin: not moot because a contempt finding could affect future disputes and attorney-fee sanctions may still be appropriate	Hope: custody change gained after appeal makes contempt relief unnecessary (implied)	Not moot—court may grant meaningful relief and contempt findings can affect future proceedings
Whether personal service of the judgment/decree is required to prove knowledge for contempt	Justin: personal service of the judgment is not required; actual knowledge of the order (via oral on-the-record approval, signed agreement, and acknowledgement) suffices	Hope/circuit court: party must be personally served with the judgment or have personal notice to be held in contempt	Reversed—the court held personal service of the judgment is not required; actual knowledge of the order’s contents is the relevant inquiry
Whether the signed settlement could form the basis of a contempt finding	Justin: settlement was incorporated into the court’s decree and thus enforceable by contempt	Hope/circuit court: the signed agreement alone is not a court order for contempt purposes	The agreement, as incorporated into the judgment and acknowledged on the record, supplied the court order and Hope had knowledge of its terms

Krueger v. Krueger, 143 N.W. 368 (S.D. 1913) (early precedent requiring personal service in contempt contexts cited by lower court)
Thomerson v. Thomerson, 387 N.W.2d 509 (S.D. 1986) (actual knowledge of judgment’s contents can satisfy knowledge element for contempt)
In re Gillespie, 397 N.W.2d 476 (S.D. 1986) (discusses requirement of personal service of order to show cause in contempt proceedings)
First Nat’l Bank of Omaha v. Kolucek, 750 N.W.2d 472 (S.D. 2008) (addresses service and contempt procedural issues)
Taylor v. Taylor, 928 N.W.2d 458 (S.D. 2019) (states elements of civil contempt and standard of review)
Hiller v. Hiller, 919 N.W.2d 548 (S.D. 2018) (contempt remedies may include attorney fees for failure to comply with visitation)
LPN Trust v. Farrar Outdoor Advert., Inc., 552 N.W.2d 796 (S.D. 1996) (party who accepts a written contract is presumed to know its contents)