Nygaard v. Taylor, Stanley v. Taylor
2017 ND 206
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Tricia Taylor (mother) absconded in Sept 2014 with her two minor children to a South Dakota Indian reservation; fathers Aarin Nygaard and Terrance Stanley had primary custody and lost contact with the children.
- Taylor was convicted of class C felony parental kidnapping and incarcerated in ND from Nov 2014; upon parole release she was immediately served with domestic-court contempt arrest warrants for refusing to return the children.
- A judicial referee found Taylor in contempt in Jan–Mar 2016 and ordered she remain imprisoned until she returned the children; the district court affirmed in Apr 2016. Taylor did not appeal those contempt findings.
- By Oct 2016 Taylor sought to quash the contempt orders and immediate release, arguing she had been incarcerated for contempt longer than six months under N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1)(b).
- The judicial referee denied immediate release in a Dec 7, 2016 order and scheduled an evidentiary hearing; the hearing was repeatedly continued and the Dec 7 orders were appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nygaard/Stanley) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dec 7, 2016 orders were appealable | Orders were interlocutory and not appealable | Orders were appealable under NDCC § 28-27-02(2) | Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction despite interlocutory posture because of extraordinary public-interest issue |
| Whether Taylor’s continued imprisonment for contempt may exceed six months under NDCC § 27-10-01.4(1)(b) | Imprisonment can extend beyond six months by treating the sanction as an order to ensure compliance or via NDCC § 27-10-01.4(1)(d)/(e) | Six-month limit applies; lacking an express statutory finding, imprisonment cannot exceed six months | Held that imprisonment for remedial contempt is limited to six months unless the court expressly finds that six months would be ineffectual; no such finding was made, so Taylor must be released |
| Whether subdivision (d) (order to ensure compliance) allows imprisonment beyond six months | Subdivision (d) permits continuing imprisonment beyond the six-month limit | Subdivision (d) cannot be read to nullify the specific six-month cap in (b) | Court held (d) cannot be used to avoid the (b) six-month statutory limit; that reading would render (b) superfluous |
| Whether subdivision (e) (other sanctions if a–d ineffectual) authorizes longer imprisonment without an express finding | (Implicitly) argues court can use inherent contempt power under (e) | Requires an express finding that sanctions in (a)–(d) would be ineffectual before exceeding statutory limits | Court held (e) permits excess only if the court expressly finds statutory sanctions would be ineffectual; no such finding existed here |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (contemnor can be confined to coerce compliance where contemnor can purge contempt)
- Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) (classic articulation that civil contemnor "carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket")
- Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Kenosha Ed. Ass’n, 70 Wis.2d 325 (1975) (court must make express finding before imposing sanctions exceeding statutory limits)
- Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 2003 ND 96 (2003) (ND contempt statutes interpreted with reference to Wisconsin law)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Lee, 2010 ND 88 (2010) (explaining exercise of ND Supreme Court supervisory writ jurisdiction)