.webp)
.png)
Contempt of court comes in multiple variations in the State of Maryland. There are two distinct types of contempt, criminal and civil, and each type has two different forms, direct and constructive. Thus, there are four separate manifestations of contempt of court: direct criminal contempt, constructive criminal contempt, direct civil contempt, and constructive civil contempt. Criminal contempt involves the open or obvious disrespect of court authority, whereas civil contempt refers to a general failure to comply with the court’s orders. Direct contempt occurs either within the courtroom or adjacent to the courtroom (and might disrupt court proceedings), and constructive contempt occurs away from the courtroom and doesn’t disrupt proceedings. Hence, someone who refuses to be silent in the courtroom when instructed by the judge may be guilty of direct criminal contempt and may be punished accordingly.
Being held in contempt of court is something which every litigant wants to avoid. But, as we know, divorce often brings out some of the worst behavior and decision-making from participants. As a result, contempt citations are not infrequently given out in family law cases.
The case of Stoltz v. Stoltz (2024) is a recent example of a contempt citation which actually failed to hold up. Let’s examine this case in detail so we can get a sense of how contempt citations operate in Maryland.
Facts of the Case
The spouses in this case worked out a private settlement agreement in 2022. Among the issues worked out in the settlement agreement were child custody and property division. Specifically, with respect to property division, the agreement held that the husband would make a lump sum payment to the wife in the amount of $100,000. The agreement was placed “on the record” during the second day of the trial.
Before the trial was complete, and well before the court entered a formal judgment which integrated the settlement agreement, the husband gave the wife a check for $100,000, but put a “stop payment” order on the check so the wife was unable to cash it. Because the wife was unable to cash the check, she moved the court to issue a contempt citation for the husband’s alleged failure to comply with the court’s judgment. However, as mentioned, this occurred prior to the finalization of the trial and the implementation of a formal judgment. Nevertheless, the court initially offered the husband a “purge” opportunity which would vacate the contempt citation if he followed through with the payment, gave the wife extra parenting time and also paid the wife’s attorney’s fees (of $12,000). The husband contested the citation, and also contended that the purge offered by the court didn’t fit his particular behavior.
Outcome & Discussion
The husband ultimately prevailed, as the appellate division found the contempt citation improper, and also found the purge remedy improper. The husband was found to be in constructive civil contempt for his alleged offense, but the court’s purge remedy was clearly a form of punishment. Punishments are supposed to be restricted only for instances of direct or constructive criminal contempt, not civil contempt. In this situation, there was no question that the husband’s behavior could only be regarded as civil contempt, and so the purge remedy was improper. Furthermore, the appellate division found the citation itself to be baseless because, technically, the husband didn’t violate any court order when he put the stop payment hold on the check.
The terms of the settlement agreement weren’t integrated into a court order until two weeks after the trial ended, which means that the husband simply failed to comply with the private agreement. Failing to follow through with a private agreement is very different than failing to follow a court order. Given the timing of these things, the contempt citation was struck down.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
To learn more about the mechanics of Maryland’s contempt of court law, or another aspect of the divorce process, contact one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
