*1 III. CONCLUSION stated, For the reasons we affirm the trial judgment. court’s Affirmed. TURNER, JJ.,
MYERSCOUGH and concur. In re SAMUEL, MARRIAGE OF DAVIDL. Petitioner-Appellee, and JEANNE (Samuel
SAMUEL, Respondent Cahnman, Contemnor-Appellant). J. Fourth District No. 4 — 08—0708 Opinion Rehearing denied October 2009. MYERSCOUGH,J., concurring specially dissenting part. (argued), Stratton, Giganti, Stone, William F. III Moran Moran & Rad key, Springfield, appellant. for appearance appellee. for
No JUSTICE opinion APPLETON delivered the of the court: Cahnman, Contemnor-appellant, attorney J. found Samuel guilty postjudgment criminal during dissolution reasons, we affirm For the marriage proceedings. modified. judgment court’s
I. BACKGROUND and Jeanne marriage between David dissolution of judgment A David, obligations of David Samuel. financial Samuel set forth certain Katrina, and, Hurricane after had moved to Louisiana physician, relief him to file a caused suffering financially, which *2 trial court. by heard the obligations. petition His was not from those Samuel, a to establish an 2007, filed motion respondent, In Jeanne had significant from David. No action arrearage payments in the due attorney had withdrawn petition, and his then been taken on David’s of him in 2006. representation from Febru- proceeded hearing and on petition to was allowed
Jeanne’s Thereafter, se, attempts to set for 1, David, made several ary pro 17, 2007, On for modification. hearing his earlier motion Gramlich, Judge attorney appeared before parties and Jeanne’s docket order: following who made the pro present in present person; Respondent in se.
“Petitioner Attorney pleading up is no noticed person by and Feldman. There by filed hearing appears that the motion [c]ourt. for before this It 8, 2004[,] or January on has either been abandoned [petitioner the has 2007 February 7, by judgment entered on rendered moot been [(the signed)]. pleading date the order No was written was objecting entry judgment. [p]etitioner was obey relating and pleadings that he the rules admonished must any requests.” of his [c]ourt notice before this will consider Samuel J. contemnor-appellant, In David July retained Cahnman, him, July 11, 2008, a to vacate represent and on motion of that motion was that modify gist nonfinal orders was filed. The on his David, se, attempts settings to obtain pro had made numerous any cooperation for relief had not received temporary but attorney. alleged hearing that a Specifically, from Jeanne’s the motion 1, 2007, Judge Gramlich and had scheduled for March before been attorney. hearing unilaterally by that had canceled Jeanne’s this been copy a the March allegation, As of this Cahnman attached book, setting a Judge showing page from Gramlich’s calendar 17, 2008, hearing July on During “Samuel” that out. was crossed Judge note of the exhibit attached petition, David’s Gramlich took posses- he inquired came to be petition and Cahnman how schedule book. While copy page judge’s sion of a of a from was laid of hearing not of the discussion reported, the substance 15, 2008. contempt hearing August that occurred on record entry order hearing by the That was initiated Gramlich 2008: Judge August on “Attorney Sam appear J. Cahnman is directed to before this 15, 2008[,] August
[c]ourt on why at 8:50 a.m. to show cause he should not be held in willful civil contempt false his response question concerning [c]ourt’s to this Attorney how Cahn- man possession page came into a Judge ap- from Gramlich’s book, pointment page attached to motion filed in the July above case on 2008.” At August hearing, Judge Gramlich recited the basis for the issuance of the rule to show cause:
“THE COURT: When Mr. Cahnman appeared before me on client, behalf of he his had motion which had appended to it a exhibits, number of and in going through the exhibits which were motion[,] attached to I my noticed that there was a page from appointment book. I an inquiry made of Mr. Cahnman how he into possession page my book, came appointment responded got he Shirley that he it he because asked for it or effect, something Shirley to this he Shirley [or] asked for it and gave him the book.
I found say be bit so I anything didn’t more. unusual[J question didn’t veracity Mr. Cahnman about the of his statement. accepted bench, it at face Shirley, value. When left the I went to keeper my book, who is the appointment and I her if she asked permitted my Mr. appointment book; Cahnman to have access to *3 Shirley vehemently giving permission and denied him and was extremely agitated thought somebody the would tell me gave my that she them appointment book.” Following testimony Vinson, of and Shirley Cahnman the trial proceeded court findings, to make its during which the interchange occurred: Well, client, your
“THE COURT: I don’t believe Mr. Moran [(counsel Cahnman)]. I open hired think he lied to me in court. now, I lying think he me is to and I’m he disappointed that would falsehood, persist truly you in this suggestion am. Do have a to you to [c]ourt as what believe an appropriate your might client be? Honor,
MR. point [r]ule MORAN: Your would out in the [c]ause[,] you said [c]ontempt, [s]how [w]ilfull [i]ndirect and [c]ivil probably [c]ontempt.” [w]ilfull [d]irect [c]riminal believe it’s of contempt The trial court found contemnor indirect criminal imposed requirement acceptable court and fine and the that an $100 apology appeal be written to the court. This followed.
II. ANALYSIS primary appeal is his Contemnor-appellant’s argument on due-process rights given were because he notice of a violated
401 contempt the trial court charge of indirect civil hearing on the due Obviously, process contempt. criminal him to be in indirect found charge brought he is of what given be notice requires respondent that a criminal is for indirect punished before he to court to answer 559, 398, 563, N.E.2d 48 Ill. 2d 273 Tomashevsky, contempt. People v. (1971). contempt certain Moreover, proceeding, awith criminal 401 remain silent —are right here —such as the given not admonitions to a is not shifted administered, proof and the to be burden 209-10, Marcisz, 206, 357 N.E.2d Ill. 2d respondent. See Marcisz v. 65 958, 949, 726 477, (1976); Goleash, Ill. 3d People App. v. 311 479 26, Betts, 58, 3d (2000); App. 200 Ill. 194, Marriage 200 In re N.E.2d (1990). 404, 558 N.E.2d 425 pas- difficulty is argument The with Cahnman’s evident Judge maintained sage transcript quoted above. Had Gramlich of the could contempt, civil no issue his decision to find Cahnman in indirect sug- It at the propriety be to the of his show-cause order. was raised as proceeding was converted to gestion of Cahnman’s counsel that the contempt. product one The for indirect criminal error was invitation. argues party by acceding
A who that the trial court erred to the party’s suggestion complain own heard to of the invited er- cannot be 222, 679, Taylor, 216, ror. Ill. N.E.2d 682 Stephens See v. 207 2d 797 (2003); 152, 163, Village Winnetka, App. v. 359 Ill. 3d 833 Lapp 893, (2005); Vaden, 896-97, Ill. 983, People App. N.E.2d 992 v. 336 3d 410, (2003); E.S., 784 413 In re 324 Ill. 3d 756 App. N.E.2d (2001). 422, N.E.2d 430 contempt show proceeding circumstances which led ele- types contempt. sought punish
ments of various In that the court contemnor, appropriate type contempt, rather than coerce the out, re Ill. pointed Marriage Carpel, Moran is criminal. See In 232 (1992). 806, 847, App. 822, specific 3d 597 act N.E.2d 859 While court, telling committed by the contemnor was falsehood ordinarily an direct occurring open constituting act court and contempt, required readily of the falsehood evidencenot before court, Therefore, i.e., testimony proceeding the trial of Vinson. proper. See In theory under of indirect criminal civil L.A.S., 727, (1985); People App. re N.E.2d 730 132 Ill. 3d 477 (1989); Townsend, v. 3d N.E.2d App. 183 Ill. *4 (1972). Javaras, 2d N.E.2d 672 People v. 51 Ill. 281 suggested The from the conversion alleged other errors also flow contempt of civil one for indirect criminal a true, proceeding in a contempt. suggests, It is that as contemnor ap- some other counsel contempt, Attorney for criminal the State’s 402
pointed by the court
Betts,
carries forward
of the contempt.
200
Ill.
3d
App.
The argues contemnor further that the trial a court suffered from predisposition to find him For guilty. proposition, the contemnor that personal asserts the trial court knowledge disputed had of evidentiary People Hollins, facts. See City Chicago ex rel. v. 368 Ill. of (2006). App. 934, 947-48, 3d N.E.2d argues He also court failed find him of guilty contempt indirect criminal beyond a reasonable doubt.
The seminal difference between criminal contempt, and civil indirect, whether direct or purpose remedy. is the of the If is pun- it ish, contempt behavior, is criminal. If it is to coerce either to produce a desired on action of the contemnor or a modifica- conduct, tion Here, of future isit civil. there two components were the trial court’s order contempt: of the fine and the apology.
findWe that the trial initial court’s course of action is sustainable fine, only if which clearly behavior, is for improper is eliminated of evaluation the proceeding apology, below. An course, which, of an implies past conduct, easily admission of is also promise construed as a not to engage similar behavior in the future. extent, To that it is coercive and is permissible therefore sanction for indirect contempt. civil extraordinarily of is contempt law nuanced and arises in its
application high emotion, in circumstances of such as Both the here. place court and counsel tread carefully complained-of must contempt, conduct the correct of type denomination because each contempt specific procedure carries with it rules of to avoid error. Shonkwiler, Principles Contempt, by written Honorable John E is every available to judge the State Illinois and should be used to guide judge in analyzing category contempt applies procedural what rules obtain for category.
III. CONCLUSION against We vacate the imposition fine entered $100 modify finding contemnor and entered the trial contempt. respects, court to one of indirect civil In all the find- other ings and order trial court are affirmed.
Affirmed as modified. J.,
TURNER, concurs. *5 part in and dis- concurring MYERSCOUGH, specially JUSTICE part: senting agree part. dissent respectfully concur specially However, full. The affirm in would be affirmed.
the trial court should as reimburse- but fine as a did not assess the $100 court entry costs. docket county operating for its ment have been states, by now should “The fine which August Fund, Sangamon the same Sangamon County General delivered to the Center, defray help will Detention County supports Juvenile hands of the county suffered costs the has copious copy reason, in full. I would affirm contemnor.” For ASSOCIATION,Plaintiff-Appellant, INSURANCE FARMERSAUTOMOBILE (David Winkler, al., Defendants-Appellees, D. et v. MICHAEL C. DANNER Defendant). Fourth District No. 4 — 08—0905 Opinion