323 P.3d 637
Wyo.2014Background
- Carters and Meckems own adjacent tracts; easement grants 20-foot wide road over Dubois Heights Road and across Dubois Heights Subdivision road.
- Meckems placed gates and obstructed roads, and added a utility box and septic leach field interfering with easement access.
- Carters obtained a 2012 judgment: declaratory relief, mandatory injunction to remove obstructions, and permanent injunction against interference with the easement.
- Carters moved for contempt in 2013 alleging Meckems failed to remove obstructions; Meckems disputed that obstructions lay outside the easement as described.
- District court found obstruction at the intersection (a curving “Y”) with Solitude Road, and entered an order of contempt describing a 250-foot area for removal and imposing a $100 per day penalty.
- Appellants appeal; court affirms contempt finding but reverses the $100 per day penalty as improper civil contempt sanction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the contempt order amend the judgment via Rule 60(a)? | Carters argue order clarifies/reflects judgment, not a modification. | Meckems contend it altered the 1979 easement description and restricted 250-foot area. | No improper modification; order clarifies, not amends; contempt affirmed. |
| Were the Meckems in civil contempt for obstructing the easement? | Carters showed willful disobedience of a clear court order. | Meckems claim they complied or interpreted the judgment differently. | Civil contempt proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Is the $100 per day contempt penalty permissible? | Carters sought damages for ongoing obstruction. | Meckems argue it is a civil penalty or fine. | Penalty reversed; not a permissible civil contempt sanction; can use other coercive means if noncompliance persists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tafoya v. Tafoya, 2013 WY 121 (Wyoming 2013) (two-part Rule 60(a) inquiry: clerical vs substantive correction; clarify not amend)
- Shindell v. Shindell, 2014 WY 51 (Wyoming 2014) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence; willfulness)
- Turner v. Rogers, --- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (U.S. 2011) (civil contempt sanctions must consider inability to comply)
- Stephens v. Lavitt, 2010 WY 129 (Wyoming 2010) (forfeiture of easement as permissible civil contempt sanction in appropriate circumstances)
- Walker v. Walker, 2013 WY 132 (Wyoming 2013) (compensatory civil contempt allowed for actual damages; not punitive unless proper)
- Horn v. Dist. Court, 647 P.2d 1368 (Wyoming 1982) (distinguish civil contempt fines from criminal fines; proper use of sanctions)