Dave “the Hammer” Schultz is known to hockey fans as one of the NHL’s most feared and greatest enforcers in its storied history. Case in point; he hasn’t played an NHL game in more than 40 years, but still holds the record for most penalty minutes in a season. He is, in hockey parlance, ‘a beauty’.
Both these men were considered remarkably effective ‘enforcers’. To their credit, their respective teams won multiple Stanley Cups, and they helped their teammates, including one named Wayne Gretzky, achieve Hall of Fame careers.
What both men did effectively, was deter their opponents from attacking and neutralizing the enormous talent that each of their respective teams boasted. ‘Hammer’s’ presence helped Bobby Clarke become league MVP three times. And thanks to Semenko, Gretzky’s career needs no explanation; he’s simply the ‘Great One’. Both Gretzky and Clarke owe their success, in part, to these great enforcers.
Similar to a hockey enforcer, a ‘contempt’ charge is often thought of when people need to ‘enforce’ a court order. A fair comparison? Sure! Why wouldn’t the threat of getting thrown in jail scare people into obedience?
But is contempt really the ‘Hammer’ we need to enforce the rules like Dave Schultz did?
More ‘Pillow’ Than ‘Hammer’?
Minnesota law gives judges the authority to find a person in contempt for disobedience of any lawful judgment, process or order of a court. See Minn. Stat. §588.01 subd. 3(3).
For example an ex-spouse’s failure to pay spousal maintenance, is a often-cited act of disobedience. And, you’d think that ignoring a spousal maintenance obligation is akin to ‘taking a run’ at Wayne Gretzky, and having to answer to the fists of Dave Semenko!
But, the purpose of a contempt is not to punish, but to “make meaningful, the rights of one party as against the other”. See Hopp v Hopp 156 NW2d 212 (Minn. 1968). Contempt is often described as “giving the keys to jail cell” to the offending party. See Mahody v. Mahady, 448 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
This means that before a court can hold someone contempt (for failing to pay maintenance), it must first find, after a hearing, that the obligor had the ability to pay maintenance, and, can “satisfy the conditions to purge themselves of the contempt.” Hence the reference to ‘holding the keys to the jailhouse’.
So if a spousal maintenance obligor has evidence that they’ve lost their job, they’ve become injured, or their business has gone bankrupt and they can no longer afford to pay spousal maintenance, the court cannot hold that obligor in contempt.
If this feels like throwing a hit on Gretzky excuses you from fighting Semenko, if you can explain that you can’t hold your own against Semenko, well…. you might be right! And when contempt is explained this way, it feels like less like a ‘Hammer’ and more like a pillow.
But even a pillow can effectively be used to coerce behavior. And besides, whatever instrument they were using Dave Schultz and Dave Semenko were still awfully intimidating!
Similarly, a skilled lawyer can use the law, including a contempt remedy, to enforce compliance with a spousal maintenance obligation.
Whether it’s a ‘hammer’ or not, it’s important to know how and whether the contempt remedy can be used in your case. Getting competent legal advice is always recommended.
Meet Tim Simonson
Tim has been practicing for more than twenty (20) years now, He's handled divorce, child support, child custody, third party and grandparent rights, domestic abuse, parenting time, and many other areas of family law. He always enjoys the chance to meet people and see whether he can help find solutions to their legal problems.
Contact Beyer & Simonson
If you are facing divorce and any of the divorce-related issues such as spousal maintenance, child support, child custody, property division, or domestic abuse matters, you need our experienced Minneapolis divorce attorneys to help you. Contact Beyer & Simonson in Edina, Minnesota today at (952) 303-6007.