Stehle v. Zimmerebner
497 S.W.3d 188
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Stehle and Zimmerebner divorced; child-support orders were entered and modified over time, producing a large arrearage.
- May 1, 2014 order found Stehle in willful contempt and fixed an arrearage; ordered biweekly current support plus $37.80 toward arrears and provided for incarceration if she missed a payment for 30 days.
- After alleged missed/insufficient payments, Zimmerebner sought contempt and a body attachment; a body attachment was initially issued for the full arrearage but stayed pending hearing.
- At hearings, Stehle testified she was a recent college graduate, had obtained teaching work, had family financial strain (husband’s unemployment, limited savings), and was subject to wage withholding for current support.
- July 31, 2015 circuit-court order found Stehle in civil contempt and ordered her to report to jail every weekend until she made a “proper effort” to retire the arrearage of $11,909; “proper effort” was defined only by nonquantitative examples (substantial payment, substantial regular payment, additional employment, or other action satisfactory to the court).
- Stehle appealed, arguing the court failed to find ability to pay before ordering incarceration and that the purge conditions were too indefinite.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court jailed Stehle for contempt without finding ability to pay | Stehle: court erred; inability-to-pay is a complete defense to conditional incarceration and court made no finding of ability to pay | Zimmerebner: (implicitly) incarceration was coercive civil contempt to compel efforts, not imprisonment for debt; prior orders and options made contempt proper | Reversed and remanded — court must determine ability to pay before conditional incarceration; imprisonment without that finding violates Arkansas Constitution and precedent |
| Whether contempt order’s purge conditions were sufficiently definite | Stehle: order is unconstitutionally indefinite; ‘‘proper effort’’ is subjective and gives no clear means to purge contempt | Zimmerebner: circuit court provided multiple, reasonable alternatives to purge (payments, regular payments, additional employment) and was more lenient than prior order | Reversed — order must be definite, specify clear, measurable means to purge so liberty does not hinge on subjective judicial opinion |
| Nature of contempt (civil vs criminal) and consequence for purge | Stehle: characterized as civil but argued court treated it as debt imprisonment without ability-to-pay finding | Zimmerebner: characterized action as coercive civil contempt to secure compliance | Court (majority & concurrence): contempt was civil/coercive; thus ability-to-pay inquiry and clear purge conditions are required |
| Remedy and remand | Stehle: requested reversal of incarceration order | Zimmerebner: urged affirmance | Court: reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion (make ability-to-pay findings and craft definite purge terms) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ivy v. Keith, 351 Ark. 269 (clarity required in contempt orders; contemnor must know how to purge)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 225 Ark. 487 (inability to pay is a defense to imprisonment for contempt)
- Gould v. Gould, 308 Ark. 213 (imprisonment for disobedience without finding ability to pay violates constitution)
- Hull v. Gardner, 334 Ark. 325 (remand required when trial court fails to determine ability to pay before incarceration)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (due-process concerns when ability to pay is decisive in civil contempt leading to incarceration)