Stevens v. Tokuda, 85 A.3d 321

Circuit court found Stevens in constructive civil contempt for failing to pay $1,000 monthly child support and imposed purge provisions: $300 monthly arrearage payment and weekly job-search logs.
Contempt purge provisions were refined in 2011 to require weekly job-search information instead of monthly, with notice of employment within 48 hours.
February 2, 2012 order imposed 179 days in Carroll County Detention Center plus five days furlough to seek employment, with geographic limits and documentation requirements.
Stevens filed a motion to modify child support; master recommended reduction to $708/month based on potential income of $50,000/year, though actual income was $0.
August 30, 2011 order sustained exceptions in part but did not finalize a new support amount; February 2, 2012 remanded the modification issue to the master for additional evidence; appellant appealed.
Court ultimately vacated the balance of the 179-day incarceration, affirmed remand to the master for the modification issue, and affirmed the remand-related aspects of the February 2, 2012 order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether October 18, 2010 contempt finding was appealable	Stevens argues improper for lack of timely appeal	Tokuda argues timely appeal not required for contempt order	No jurisdiction over October 18, 2010 order due to untimely appeal
Whether 179 days incarceration was proper given purge ability	Incarceration improper when purgeable via present ability to purge	Court imposed incarceration under purge failed to show present ability to purge	Vacate balance of 179-day sentence; improper because purge condition lacking present ability to purge
Whether remand for additional evidence on modification was proper	Remand unnecessary since August 30, 2011 ruling final	Remand authorized to develop needed evidence under Rule 9-208 and case law	Remand to master for additional evidence proper; final ruling remained pending

Blake v. Blake, 341 Md. 326 (1996) (contingent matters and appealability in intertwined contempt and family cases)
In re Ariel G., 383 Md. 240 (2004) (timing of appeals in contempt; final judgments required for certain rulings)
Arrington v. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 402 Md. 79 (2007) (imprisonment for civil contempt requires purge provisions and present ability to purge)
Jones v. State, 351 Md. 264 (1998) (guidance on Maryland Rule 15-207(e) sanctions; purge requirement for civil contempt)
O’Brien v. O’Brien, 367 Md. 547 (2002) (remand and de novo considerations for modification of support)