Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc.
2012 Ind. LEXIS 43
Ind.2012Background
- Contempt of court for Witt, HydroTech, and Shere stemming from TRO and contempt hearing in an environmental cleanup dispute.
- TRO halted UST removal, soil excavation, and environmental remediation until a preliminary injunction hearing.
- Shere and HydroTech misunderstood TRO terms, enabling backfilling and selective sampling despite the TRO.
- Jay Petroleum sought notice and observer rights for soil testing; dispute over testing and sampling scope.
- Court held contempt and imposed joint and several costs and attorneys’ fees totaling $108,487.32.
- On appeal, Witt, Shere, and HydroTech challenge TRO validity, contempt findings, and sanctions; Court affirms contempt and sanctions; dissents argue lack of willful disobedience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TRO was clear and enforceable and whether contempt was proper | Witt/Shere argue TRO was ambiguous and not willfully violated | Jay Petroleum argues TRO clearly barred relevant activities | TRO clear and violated; contempt affirmed |
| Whether the conduct was willful disobedience | Witt/Shere/ HydroTech claim actions were safety-driven and not willful | Court found willful disobedience | Willful disobedience established; contempt upheld |
| Whether sanctions were properly awarded and properly allocated | Witt/Shere challenge fee basis and apportionment | Trial court carefully tailored fee award | Sanctions affirmed; costs and fees properly awarded |
| Whether HydroTech can be held jointly and severally liable given roles | HydroTech argues lack of willful disobedience | Joint liability appropriate due to concerted action | Joint and several liability upheld |
| Whether the contempt finding should be reversed for evidentiary gaps | Record insufficient on soil sampling and backfilling | Record supports contempt finding | Record supports contempt; not reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Gary v. Major, 822 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt; need willful disobedience)
- In re Perrello, 260 Ind. 26, 291 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1973) (willful disobedience required for indirect contempt)
- Meyer v. Wolvos, 707 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (burden to show violation was not willful)
- Bottoms v. B & M Coal Corp., 405 N.E.2d 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (joint and several damages when acting in concert to violate order)
- Hopping v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1294 (Ind. 1994) (contempt involves disobedience undermining court authority)