Tina Herron v. City of Indianapolis, 59 N.E.3d 319

City of Indianapolis sued Herron for multiple municipal code violations related to animal care; trial court granted judgment June 3, 2014 and prohibited Herron from owning or keeping animals in Marion County.
IACC officers found Herron with nine dogs at a Goya Street address in Nov. 2014; City filed a motion for contempt and a rule to show cause for violating the June 3 order.
City amended its contempt motion seeking 30 days jail and costs; at the contempt hearing the City requested a $2,500 fine but presented no evidence of costs.
Trial court found Herron willfully in contempt on Dec. 14, 2015 and ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine to the Marion County Clerk within 90 days.
Herron moved to correct error arguing the $1,000 fine was punitive (impermissible in civil contempt without a purge option); the trial court denied the motion and Herron appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $1,000 sanction for civil contempt was permissible	City argued fines or imprisonment may be used to coerce compliance; requested $2,500 and costs	Herron argued the $1,000 fine was punitive because it was neither compensatory (no evidence of City damages) nor coercive (no purge option)	Reversed: fine was punitive and impermissible in civil contempt; vacate sanction

Damon Corp. v. Estes, 750 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (appellate standard when appellee does not file a brief and prima facie error review)
Johnson Cnty. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Burnell, 484 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (definition of prima facie in appellate context)
In re Adoption of A.A., 51 N.E.3d 380 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court discretion in awarding damages)
Evans v. Evans, 766 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (civil contempt’s primary objective is coercion or compensation, not punishment)
In re Paternity of Pickett, 44 N.E.3d 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court authority to compensate aggrieved party for contempt-caused losses)
Scoleri v. Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (compensatory damages in contempt must relate to actual losses)
Nance v. Miami, 825 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (fines or imprisonment not for aggrieved party’s benefit are punitive and improper in civil contempt)
Nat’l Educ. Ass’n—South Bend v. South Bend Cmty. School Corp., 655 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (a fine is coercive only if contemnor is offered a purge opportunity)
Hancz v. City of South Bend, 691 N.E.2d 1322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (fines payable to clerk rather than aggrieved party are not compensatory)