Linda R. Zweifel v. Randall Zweifel

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 20, 2014
• Docket: ED100416
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE

LINDA R. ZWEIFEL, ) No. ED100416 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Jefferson County vs. ) 09JE-DR00715-01 ) RANDALL ZWEIFEL, ) Honorable Lisa K. Page ) Appellant. ) FILED: May 20, 2014

OPINION

Randall Zweifel (Husband) appeals from a judgment of civil contempt regarding the

enforcement of divorce decree provisions. This court dismisses Husband’s claims because he

has purged himself of the contempt by complying with the contempt order.

Factual and Procedural History

Husband and Linda R. Zweifel (Wife) were divorced in 2012. On February 4, 2013,

Wife filed a motion for contempt alleging non-compliance with the parties’ marital settlement

agreement. Following a two-day trial, the trial court issued its contempt judgment on July 2,

2013, in which it required Husband to pay Wife $67,000 and $29,000 to satisfy a property

settlement and resolution of a short sale on a piece of jointly owned real estate, respectively,

under the marital settlement agreement. Husband was granted a credit of $21,000 for monies

withdrawn by Wife from the business account and Husband was ordered to pay $75,000 plus

interest and attorneys fees within a specified time in order to purge himself of the contempt. The trial court also found that Wife was entitled to an additional $77,657.46 of the parties’ 2012

profits emanating from their joint business prior to the divorce, but the trial court did not enforce

that sum against Husband. The trial court stated in its judgment: “Because this was not part of

the contempt citation for this hearing, this sum is not awarded to [Wife] at this time.” The trial

court also reserved judgment on other portions of Wife’s motion for contempt.

Husband timely filed post-trial motions, which the trial court denied. On September 4,

2013, Wife acknowledged satisfaction of the judgment for $75,000 plus interest and dismissed

without prejudice the remaining counts of her motion for contempt. Husband now appeals from

the finding in the contempt judgment that he owes Wife an additional $77,657.46.

Contempt Appeal Not Reviewable

In his appeal, Husband claims the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he owed

Wife an additional $77,657.46 pursuant to a marital settlement agreement. While Husband

concedes that the trial court included this finding as part of the contempt citation and did not

enter an award for this disputed sum, Husband nevertheless contends he is entitled to appeal

from this portion of the judgment to avoid any res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on his

ability to challenge the finding in future proceedings.

Before reaching the merits of Husband’s claims, this court must, sua sponte, determine

whether it has jurisdiction over the claims raised on appeal. In re Marriage of Werths, 33

S.W.3d 541, 542 (Mo. banc 2000). Like other judgments, a contempt order must be final before

it may be appealed. Emmons v. Emmons, 310 S.W.3d 718, 722 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).

Therefore, in order for this court to exercise its jurisdiction, there must be a final, appealable

judgment. In re Crow and Gilmore, 103 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Mo. banc 2003). We examine

whether the trial court’s contempt order is appealable.

2 “The purpose of a civil contempt order is to compel compliance with the relief

granted....” Emmons, 310 S.W.3d at 722. “A party held to be in civil contempt has two options:

(1) purge [himself] of the contempt by complying with the court’s order, making the case moot

and unappealable; or (2) appeal the order, but only after the court’s order is enforced by

incarceration or otherwise.” Lieurance v. Lieurance, 111 S.W.3d 445, 446 (Mo. App. E.D.

2003). Here, Husband chose the first option. The trial court’s contempt order was issued for the

purpose of compelling Husband to provide Wife with sums owed pursuant to a marital settlement

agreement. Husband purged himself of the contempt by complying with the contempt order.

The record shows that Husband satisfied the contempt portion of the trial court’s judgment on

September 4, 2013. “An appellate court will not review contempt proceedings where the

contemnor has complied with the order or has purged” himself. Yeager v. Yeager, 622 S.W.2d

339, 343 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981).

Husband’s point challenging the trial court’s judgment finding him in civil contempt is

not appealable and, therefore, is dismissed. The dismissal of Husband’s appeal has no collateral

estoppel effect on the remaining portions of the judgment not awarded or enforced as it did not

result in a judgment on the merits.

Conclusion

Because there is no final appealable judgment, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this

appeal.

_________________________________ Mary K. Hoff, Presiding Judge

Kurt S. Odenwald, Judge, and Angela Turner Quigless, Judge, concur.