is authorized to compel someone
to obey a courts order in present
tense. If it is in direct view of
the Court or even if it is indirect
view of the Court. The difference
as in regard to Child Support for
example the remedy of incarceration
is only to Compel compliance to
the Court Order, however only if
you have the ability to comply and
are simply not doing so. You may
be held until you no longer have
the ability to pay and it is grounds
for immediate release. Unlike Criminal
Contempt which is typically a specific
term for punitive damages.
is for something that is current
that you may purge yourself of,
while Criminal Contempt is typically
for a past wrong you have committed.
Under the Civil Contempt you must
be provided with the option to purge
yourself of the contumacious act.
With regard to Child Support Enforcement,
most states have it built into the
statutes that Civil Contempt / Incarceration
is a specific remedy for violation
of the Court's order, it is not
for the civil debt, it is specifically
for the act of "willfully disobeying
an order of the court while having
the capacity to comply" even
if the order is unjust, you must
comply unless a stay of enforcement
is granted, while you are challenging
the "unjust" order.
For Non-payment of Child Support
You can not be
held in contempt for child support
if you can not afford to pay. The
burden of proof that you can afford
to pay is on the other side, but
judges ignore this fact every day
- playing ignorant unless you bring
Contempt is supposed to be
to get compliance. Jail will not
get compliance. Demand immediate
reduction in support amount is jailed.
Jury trial - demand it. If
criminal you have an absolute right.
Civil if over $20
Ask about jurisdiction
- SJC had Common Law Jurisdiction
until 1877 and exclusive jurisdiction
til 1889 on divorce and custody
issues. Wrong venue and jurisdiction
voids all orders.
Is the DOR there making the
claim or is it your ex. Demand
the DOR be there.
Wish I could suggest more.
Not at home computer
Right to jury trial in Contempt
BLOOM V. ILLINOIS, 88 S.Ct.
DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA, 88 S.Ct.
Contempt of Court is quasi-criminal,
merits all constitutional protections:
EX PARTE DAVIS, 344 SW 2d
THE STATE OF SOUTH
In The Court of Appeals
Case No. 98-CP-32-0098
Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc., Respondent,
Chris Cloyd and United Oil Marketers,
Case No. 98-CP-32-0099
Incarceration under certain factual
circumstances may be included as
a component of civil contempt. Strict
parameters should be placed on the
use of incarceration as a part of
civil contempt. In Harris-Jenkins
v. Nissan Car Mart, Inc., 348 S.C.
171, 557 S.E.2d 708 (Ct. App. 2001),
this Court enunciated the constitutional
concernment of the use of imprisonment
under the aegis and ambit of civil
contempt. Harris-Jenkins annunciates:
We note and emphasize that South
Carolina law does not permit a person
to be held in contempt for failure
to pay a civil debt, which has arisen
solely out of a contractual obligation.
Sanders v. Sanders, 30 S.C. 229,
9 S.E. 97 (1889). Furthermore, the
Constitution of South Carolina provides
"[n]o person shall be imprisoned
for debt except in cases of fraud."
S.C. Const. art. I §19; see also
Carter v. Lynch, 429 F.2d 154 (4th
Cir. 1970); Stidham v. DuBose, 128
S.C. 318, 121 S.E. 791 (1924).
Incarceration should never be imposed
due to the simplistic failure of
an individual to pay a civil debt.
Additionally, imprisonment is not
authorized for the failure to comply
with a settlement agreement in the
absence of fraud or bad faith.
We affirm the award of attorney's
fees. However, the severity of the
sanctions imposed by way of fine
or possible incarceration is troubling.
Consequently, we reverse the imposition
of the fine and possible incarceration.
Because we conclude the circuit
judge may impose a fine and incarceration
in this scenario, we remand to the
circuit judge for the purpose of
reviewing the imposition of reasonable
sanctions for contempt as follows:
(1) ascertain with exactitude the
financial condition of the defendants;
(2) evaluate defendants' contumacious
conduct under the general principles
of Curlee v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377,
287 S.E.2d 915 (1982), and Shillitani
v. U.S., 384 U.S. 364, 86 S.Ct.
1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); and
(3) impose sanctions that are directly
and proximately connected to Cloyd's
Irrefutably, sanctions should be
imposed upon Cloyd.