Sickler v. Sickler
293 Neb. 521
Neb.2016Background
- Madeline Sickler (now Schmitz) was awarded 18.6% of Steven Sickler’s IRA in the 2001 dissolution decree; the decree quantified a dollar amount but did not require a QDRO.
- Steven made multiple withdrawals from the IRA (totaling about $209,980) after the decree; by 2005 the account was nearly depleted and could not satisfy Madeline’s award.
- Madeline obtained a QDRO attempt (vacated in 2006); the court in 2006 found Steven willfully dissipated funds and ordered restitution of $37,234.84 to Madeline.
- Steve failed to pay; various attempts at collection (assignment of potential litigation proceeds in 2007, a 2014 stipulation for payment) produced no payment.
- In 2015 the district court found Steven in continuing civil contempt and ordered 90 days’ incarceration unless he paid $37,234.84 within 17 days; the order was stayed on condition of a $25,000 appearance bond pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration for failing to pay restitution from a property-division award violates Neb. Const. art. I, § 20 (imprisonment for debt) | Madeline: Contempt enforcement of a property-division award is equitable, not a debt-collection, so incarceration is permissible as civil contempt | Steven: Imprisonment to coerce payment of money is imprisonment for debt and thus unconstitutional | Held: Enforcement of property-division orders via civil contempt is not imprisonment for debt; constitutional bar inapplicable |
| Whether the court correctly found Steven’s dissipation willful | Madeline: Steven knowingly withdrew funds after being notified Madeline had not received her share; conduct was willful | Steven: Madeline delayed obtaining a QDRO and could have secured funds herself; he lacked culpable intent | Held: Court’s finding of willfulness was supported; Steven acted with knowledge and withdrew funds nonetheless |
| Whether the 17-day purge period and 90-day conditional sentence converted the sanction into criminal punishment (due process/ability-to-pay issue) | Madeline: Steven had ample opportunity over years to pay; he did not prove present inability to pay | Steven: No evidence he could raise the lump sum in 17 days; the order deprived him of the keys to his cell (i.e., punitive rather than coercive) | Held: Because Steven failed to assert and prove present inability to comply, the civil sanction remained valid; the court did not err in setting the purge amount/time. However, the order must allow purge while incarcerated (see modification) |
| Whether the district court’s order was defective for lack of explicit findings on ability to comply and for lack of a purge clause after the deadline | Madeline: no relief on this procedural ground; Steven had burden to prove inability | Steven: Court failed to make express findings on present ability to pay; sentence as written lacked a post-deadline purge option, making it punitive | Held: Prospectively courts must make express findings on ability to comply; here court committed plain error by failing to include an express continuing purge clause after June 15 — appellate court modified order to permit purge at any time during incarceration |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) (ability to pay is critical to distinguish civil from criminal contempt and procedural protections required)
- Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, 279 Neb. 661 (2010) (standards for postjudgment contempt proceedings and review)
- Grady v. Grady, 209 Neb. 311 (1981) (upholding contempt incarceration for diversion of property awarded in divorce)
- Rosenbloom v. State, 64 Neb. 342 (1902) (interpreting art. I, § 20 as limited to debt-collection proceedings)
- Maddux v. Maddux, 239 Neb. 239 (1991) (contemnor bears burden to assert/ prove inability to comply to avoid incarceration)