Section 42 Judgment and Commitment

• Library: Remedies 2006

The findings, judgment, and commitment in contempt proceedings are strictly construed in favor of the contemnor. Nothing is inferred in favor of restraint of liberty, and presumptions and intendments will not be indulged in order to aid it. Scott v. Davis, 328 S.W.2d 394 (Mo. App. S.D. 1959); Sands v. Richardson, 252 S.W. 990 (Mo. App. W.D. 1923); Ex parte Heffron, 162 S.W. 652 (Mo. App. E.D. 1913). The judgment and commitment must set forth the specific facts and circumstances that go to make up the offense, and not the legal conclusions of the judge. See:

• Moore v. Buerger, 709 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986)

• Vokolek v. Carnes, 512 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. banc 1974) (a commitment was insufficient when it stated only that the petitioner, by active participation, assisted his wife in removing her children in violation of a juvenile court order, with no specification as to what the aiding or participating consisted of)

• State ex rel. Nesser v. Pennoyer, 887 S.W.2d 394 (Mo. banc 1994)

• Nance v. Nance, 880 S.W.2d 341 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994)

• Burton v. Everett, 845 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (a judgment or order of commitment in a contempt proceeding that fails to recite the facts and circumstances that constitute an offense and that merely states legal conclusions cannot stand)

• Bruns v. Thomas, 919 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (a commitment for contempt that is not supported by a judgment of contempt is invalid)

• Mischeaux v. Hais, 939 S.W.2d 49 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (trial court erroneously failed to set forth the particular facts and circumstances constituting contempt; mere conclusions are insufficient to support an order of commitment)

• Thornton v. Doyle, 969 S.W.2d 342 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (“For criminal contempt, both the judgment of contempt and order of commitment must recite the relevant facts and circumstances constituting the offense and not simply the legal conclusions of the court.”)

• Yalem v. Yalem, 801 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990)

• In re Marriage of Scott, 792 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990)

• Walton v. Walton, 789 S.W.2d 64 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990)

Section 476.140, RSMo 2000, and Rule 36.01(b) further require, in criminal contempt, that the order and commitment set forth the punishment. Civil contempt commitments must state that the contemnor is committed until the contemnor complies with the order or is otherwise released according to law, Zeitinger v. Mitchell, 244 S.W.2d 91 (Mo. 1951), and the contemnor must be able to comply with the order, Lyons v. Sloop, 40 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001).

In civil contempt, the judgment and commitment must also set forth facts supporting the finding that the contemnor has the means with...