Sharon Wechsler v. Norman J. Wechsler
162 Idaho 900
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Sharon obtained a New York divorce-related money judgment against Norman (May 27, 2014) and filed it in Idaho as a foreign judgment (Mar. 10, 2015); Norman had previously defaulted on obligations from the divorce decree.
- A New York court appointed a primary receiver over Norman’s assets (May 2013) to liquidate interests including Norman’s interest in CYB Master, LLC; Sharon sought an ancillary receiver in Idaho to assist with Idaho-located assets.
- Sharon conducted a debtor’s examination in Idaho after Norman was evasive; she served a subpoena duces tecum seeking business records Norman kept in his Pocatello home; Norman refused to produce documents claiming third-party rights.
- The Idaho district court granted Sharon’s motion to compel, denied Norman’s motions to strike, appointed an ancillary receiver limited to Idaho assets, and issued a writ of assistance to enable seizure of listed records.
- Norman refused the ancillary receiver and sheriff entry; the district court found Norman in contempt, ordered compliance, assessed costs for the failed first attempt, and denied Norman’s constitutional and conflict-of-interest claims.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion, rejected Fourth/Fifth/Sixth Amendment challenges, and awarded Sharon attorney fees on appeal as frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Sharon's Argument | Norman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to compel debtor’s-exam responses and production | Proper under I.R.C.P. 69(c) and discovery rules; Norman was evasive and Rule 37 relief was appropriate | Debtor’s-exam governed by Idaho Code §§11-504/11-508, not discovery rules; court conflated procedures | Court: motion to compel permissible under Rule 69(c) and discovery rules; no abuse of discretion |
| Appointment of ancillary receiver (Idaho) | Proper under I.C. §8-601 and equity practice to appoint local ancillary receiver to marshal Idaho assets | No Idaho statutory support; authority duplicated by New York primary receiver; objected to appointment without bond | Court: appointment within trial court discretion, limited to Idaho assets; bond issue not preserved on appeal |
| Constitutional challenges (Fourth/Fifth/Sixth) to writ of assistance and seizure | Writ enforces civil judgment; receiver acted independently for creditor; sheriff only assisted; post-judgment remedies need not give new hearing | Writ functioned as a government search/seizure without warrant; violated Fourth Amendment, due process, and confrontation rights | Court: Fourth/Fifth/Sixth claims rejected — receiver acted privately under court order, no reasonable privacy interest, post-judgment remedies appropriate, contempt sanctions conditional/compensatory |
| Motions to strike hearsay attachments and scandalous memorandum | Discovery-stage materials need not be admissible; documents may lead to admissible evidence under I.R.C.P. 26 | Affidavit exhibits were hearsay and lacked foundation; memorandum contained scandalous, unsupported allegations | Court: denial of motions to strike appropriate in discovery context; court exercised discretion reasonably |
| Alleged conflict of interest (receiver paid by Sharon; counsel issues) | Payment by requesting party is customary; counsel filed contempt only after alleged noncompliance — no attorney conflict | Payment and overlap in counsel created impermissible conflict of interest | Court: no palpable abuse; ordering requesting party to pay receiver is acceptable; no improper representation shown |
| Contempt for refusing access and production | Norman willfully disobeyed prior orders requiring cooperation; contempt remedies appropriate | No notice of writ; writ directed sheriff not Norman; inability to comply; Sixth Amendment confrontation right violated | Court: contempt affirmed — Norman willfully disobeyed prior order; sanctions were conditional/compensatory so no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Sharon sought fees as prevailing party; appeal frivolous and delay-motivated | (One-sentence request below; argued for fees generally) | Court: awarded Sharon attorney fees on appeal under I.C. §12-121 as appeal was frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Stevens, 78 Idaho 266, 300 P.2d 811 (Idaho 1956) (supports ex parte issuance of writ of assistance to place parties in possession)
- In re Kerlo, 311 B.R. 256 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) (bankruptcy trustee enforcing court orders does not automatically trigger Fourth Amendment protection when acting independently)
- Endicott-Johnson Corp. v. Encyclopedia Press, 266 U.S. 285 (U.S. 1924) (post-judgment supplemental proceedings do not require fresh notice and hearing)
- SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1992) (party obtaining benefit of receivership may be required to bear receiver’s costs)
- Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 137 Idaho 850, 55 P.3d 304 (Idaho 2002) (distinguishes civil vs. criminal contempt; Sixth Amendment protections depend on sanction character)