950 N.E.2d 19
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- S.W. is a developmentally disabled adult living in a semi-independent program provided by PIO with staff assistance.
- Pam Wesolowski, as next friend for S.W., sought a protective order against Behadil Kurtic after he pounded on her apartment door.
- On Sept 28, 2010, the trial court issued a two-year ex parte protective order; Kurtic was served Sept 29, 2010.
- Kurtic returned to the apartment and pounded on the door on Nov 3 and Nov 5, 2010, violating the order.
- On Nov 17, 2010, S.W. petitioned for Kurtic to appear for a contempt hearing and for attorney's fees; the court denied without a hearing.
- S.W. appealed through motions to correct error; the trial court denied those motions, leading to the current appeal challenging due process and the appellate filing fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a contempt hearing violated due process | S.W. contends due process requires a hearing on contempt. | Kurtic did not face a hearing due to the court’s ruling; the record supports no statutorily required hearing | Remanded for a civil contempt hearing |
| Whether the appellate filing fee should be excused | Fees may not be charged for relief or enforcement of a civil protection order | Not addressed specifically; fee collection stands | Reimbursed $250 filing fee; fee excused |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (contempt involves disobedience undermining the court's authority and dignity)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 871 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt petitions)
- In re Paternity of C.N.S., 901 N.E.2d 1102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (reverse for prima facie error when appellee's brief not filed)
- Flash v. Holtsclaw, 789 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (civil contempt remedies are coercive and remedial)