KIRSTEN FRANK KELLY, J.
Appellants, Manuel J. Moroun and Dan Stamper, appeal as of right the trial court's January 12, 2012, order directing that they be imprisoned in the Wayne County jail until defendant Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) fully complied with the trial court's opinion and order of February 1, 2010. Moroun is a director of DIBC and Stamper is its president. Previously, on November 3, 2011, the trial court found DIBC in civil contempt for failing to comply with the February 1, 2010, order, which had been entered in the underlying lawsuit filed by plaintiff Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) against DIBC and Safeco Insurance Company of America.
The underlying lawsuit arises from the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project, which is intended to facilitate the flow of traffic between the United States and Canada over the Ambassador Bridge (the Bridge) by constructing interstate freeway connections to the Bridge. DIBC owns and operates the Bridge. Stamper is the president of DIBC and is extensively involved in the operation and construction activities at the Bridge and in the defense of this lawsuit. Moroun has a living trust that is a minority shareholder of DIBC Holdings, Inc., which, in turn, owns DIBC. Moroun is also a director on the boards for DIBC and DIBC Holdings.
In April 2004, MDOT and DIBC executed an agreement, which required DIBC to construct Part A of the project in accordance with MDOT specifications and standards; plans and designs were attached to the contract as exhibits. DIBC was responsible for 100 percent of the costs associated with Part A, including construction and property acquisition costs. Because DIBC was unable to acquire all the property interests needed to complete Part A, the contract was amended in February 2006, whereby MDOT assumed responsibility to acquire, through the power of eminent domain if necessary, the property interests encompassed by a portion of Part A. On March 12, 2007, a performance bond was executed, which provided that DIBC and Safeco "are held and firmly bound unto" MDOT in the penal sum of $34,664,650 and that "the condition of this obligation is such that if the above named principal shall and will, well and faithfully, and fully, do execute and perform all of the obligations contained in the attached documents identified as Exhibits A through Exhibit E, listed below." Exhibit E was described in the bond as "Plans for DIBC portion of the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project (Part A, DIBC portion) per MDOT/DIBC agreement as amended." In November 2007, MDOT and DIBC also executed a maintenance agreement, whereby DIBC agreed to maintain and operate certain physical features or structures located on a portion of M-85, including a truck road and related infrastructure, and a gate system. The parties also agreed that DIBC could use M-85, the 1-75 exit ramp, and an access easement road in emergency situations, under certain conditions and limitations set forth in the agreement.
On October 29, 2009, MDOT filed a motion for partial summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), seeking a partial judgment ordering DIBC to construct the two-lane access road for the project. Two weeks later, on November 13, 2009, MDOT filed a second motion for partial summary disposition and an order for specific performance pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), seeking a partial judgment ordering DIBC to construct the necessary roads, ramps, and bridges to connect the 1-75 and I-96 freeways directly to the Ambassador Bridge in accordance with the agreed design for those structures. In response to these motions, DIBC essentially argued that the parties had developed a "flexible" plan, that they had merely committed to a "design concept," and that they did not memorialize any particular plan or agreement regarding the design or construction of particular roads, structures, or improvements. DIBC submitted the affidavit of Stamper to support its assertion that there was never "an immutable, final, agreed set of plans."
On February 1, 2010, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting both motions and granting MDOT's request for specific performance. The trial court found that MDOT and DIBC had "agreed on a design for DIBC's Part A of the project," as reflected in the agreements and incorporated into the performance bond, and that DIBC had not constructed Part A according to the agreed-upon design. In doing so, the trial court rejected DIBC's arguments that it was not restricted by the contract to a particular design and that it could unilaterally substitute different access routes. The trial court further noted that "DIBC ha[d] constructed permanent structures and facilities in conflict with the designs for the easement, road and ramps." Accordingly, the trial court directed DIBC, among other things, to "remove structures that have been constructed in the path of the access road and recorded easement and complete construction of its portion of the Gateway Project in accordance with the plans attached to the Performance Bond and the Maintenance Agreement."
On February 19, 2010, DIBC filed an emergency application seeking leave to appeal the court's opinion and order granting partial summary disposition, along with
DIBC then filed a motion in the trial court seeking revisions, clarification, and amendment of the order because the order did not address the issue of material and nonmaterial changes. DIBC claimed that MDOT's approval was not needed for non-material changes. At a hearing conducted on April 23, 2010, the trial court ruled that its order was enforceable, that a timetable for the completion of construction submitted by DIBC was unsatisfactory, and that DIBC's motion for revision, clarification, and amendment was frivolous.
Four days later, the trial court issued an order to show cause, directing DIBC and Stamper to appear in court on May 10, 2010, to explain why DIBC should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with the terms of the February 1, 2010, opinion and order. On the same day, DIBC filed an application with the Supreme Court, as well as a motion for a stay and a motion for immediate consideration, seeking leave to appeal this Court's denial of its application for leave to appeal filed in Docket No. 296567. The Supreme Court initially granted a stay, but subsequently denied DIBC's application for leave to appeal and vacated the stay. Dep't of Transp. v. Detroit Int'l Bridge Co., 486 Mich. 937, 782 N.W.2d 199 (2010).
The trial court rescheduled the show-cause hearing for June 10, 2010, and then for September 23, 2010, but as a result of DIBC's attempt to remove the lawsuit to federal district court, each hearing was adjourned. The trial court was finally able to conduct the show-cause hearing in December 2010, over the course of three days. Stamper appeared and testified at the hearing. On January 10, 2011, the trial court ruled that it was finding by clear and unequivocal evidence that (1) DIBC was not complying with the terms and provisions of the February 1, 2010, order, (2) the failure to comply impaired the authority and impeded the functioning of the court, (3) DIBC's acts and omissions occurred outside of the presence of the court, and (4) DIBC was in civil contempt. The trial court found that the timetable submitted by DIBC, which provided a completion date in June 2013, was completely unacceptable, especially given that at least 60 to 70 percent of the work had been completed, and directed DIBC to submit a detailed timetable that would ensure full compliance with the February 1, 2010, order within one year. The trial court also directed DIBC to submit biweekly reports regarding all scheduled work and work in progress. The trial court further ordered that Stamper be imprisoned in the Wayne County jail until DIBC began to comply with the February 1, 2010, order. Stamper was released later in the day once it was reported to the trial court that DIBC was beginning to comply with the order to remove the structures.
DIBC again filed an application seeking leave to appeal the February 1, 2010, opinion and order as well as the January 10, 2011, contempt order. This Court denied DIBC's interlocutory application "for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review" and denied the motion for a stay. Dep't of Transp. v. Detroit Int'l Bridge Co., unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 18, 2011 (Docket No. 302330). DIBC did not seek leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.
The trial court issued an opinion and order on November 3, 2011, in which it found by clear and unequivocal evidence that DIBC was in violation of the February 1, 2010, order, and therefore ruled that DIBC was, again, in civil contempt of the court. The trial court stated that the project site plan that was illustrated in the C-1 drawing "identifies the major components" of the Gateway Agreement and that DIBC was responsible for constructing "various components" shown in the C-1 drawing, which included the SO1 Bridge for outbound traffic to Canada and the "4/3 lane" road under the SO1 Bridge. After describing the fatal background and previous proceedings in this case, the court summarized the testimony from the hearing and then set forth the following findings of fact:
With respect to sanctions, the trial court listed options it was considering to coerce compliance with the February 1, 2010, order: (1) requiring DIBC's surety, Safeco, to take over responsibility for completing the project, (2) having MDOT or another construction company complete DIBC's portion of the project, (3) financial sanctions or imprisonment, or both, and (4) appointment of a receiver to stand in the place of the owner of DIBC (Moroun, according to the court) and its officers with authority to make decisions regarding the implementation of the February 1, 2010, order. The trial court indicated that it would make this sanction determination at a hearing on January 12, 2012, and directed DIBC in the interim to remove conflicting structures and perform construction in accordance with the C-1 drawing. The trial court also directed Moroun and "the top company officer for DIBC" to appear before the court on January 12, 2012, on the sanctions issue.
DIBC filed an application seeking leave to appeal the November 3, 2011, order and a motion for immediate consideration. This Court denied the interlocutory application "for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review" and denied the motion for a stay. Dep't of Transp. v. Detroit Int'l Bridge Co., unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 10, 2012 (Docket No. 307306).
In the meantime, Moroun filed a motion to be excused from appearing at the January 12, 2012, hearing. Moroun's motion stated that it was intended to inform the trial court that he was not the owner of DIBC and that he was not the decision-maker with respect to the Gateway Project, and further asserted:
MDOT filed a response to the motion, asserting that Moroun should not be excused from the hearing regarding sanctions for the contempt order because he
The parties, and appellants, along with their attorneys, appeared at the hearing conducted on January 12, 2012. In denying Moroun's motion to be excused, the trial court stated:
After discussing several options for sanctions, the trial court stated that DIBC "is best equipped to complete the project at this time" because it has the power, the resources, and the knowledge to comply with the court's order, and that the "key decision makers," who were Manuel Moroun, Stamper and Matthew Moroun (Manuel Moroun's son and the vice president of DIBC), had the responsibility to ensure that DIBC fully complied with the order. The trial court then directed DIBC to pay the maximum fine of $7,500 and MDOT's costs and reasonable attorney fees and directed that appellants be imprisoned in the Wayne County jail until DIBC complied with the court's February 1, 2010, order. The trial court also entered an opinion and order incorporating these rulings. In relevant part, the order provides:
Finally, the trial court continued the matter to February 9, 2012, "for further review of the status of the project and the appearance of the Vice President of DIBC, Matthew Moroun."
Appellants filed a claim of appeal, along with a motion for release pending appeal. This Court denied the latter on January 12, 2012. The following day, appellants filed motions for peremptory reversal, for a stay, and for immediate consideration. This Court denied the motion for peremptory reversal, but granted, in part, the motion for a stay, releasing appellants until further order of this Court. This Court also expedited the appeal by shortening the briefing schedule and scheduling the matter for oral argument on February 2, 2012.
Appellants claim that their appeal is as of right, citing MCR 7.203(A), MCR 7.204, and MCR 7.202(6)(a). MDOT asserts "this Court does not have jurisdiction . . . as claimed by both DIBC and its corporate officials, because the January 12, 2012 order is not a final order appealable by right." MDOT makes no further argument, however, believing that "[i]t appears this Court has treated the corporate officials' claim of appeal as an application for
In this case, DIBC, a party to the underlying lawsuit, was held in civil contempt of court, which must be distinguished from criminal contempt; whereas the former is coercive, the latter is punitive. In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich. 81, 95, 413 N.W.2d 392 (1987). Criminal contempt is a crime and, therefore, an order finding a party in criminal contempt of court and sanctioning the party is a final order from which the contemnor may appeal as of right. See MCL 600.308(1); MCR 7.203(A); MCR 7.202(6)(b); In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich.App. 96, 97, 667 N.W.2d 68 (2003); In re Contempt of Robertson, 209 Mich.App. 433, 436, 531 N.W.2d 763 (1995). However, an order finding a party in civil contempt of court is not a final order for purposes of appellate review. See MCL 600.308(2); MCR 7.202(6)(a).
Civil contempt is clearly at issue in this case because the trial court sought to compel DIBC's compliance with its February 1, 2010, order. Thus, an appeal by DIBC of the civil contempt order entered on November 3, 2011, must be made by application, not as of right. However, the same is not true for the individual appellants, Moroun and Stamper, who are non-parties who have not been held in contempt but instead have been sanctioned for DIBC's contempt. Even if a final order against DIBC had been issued, appellants would not have the ability to appeal as of right under MCR 7.203(A) because they do not have party status. Thus, limiting appellants to only seeking leave to appeal by application would be tantamount to denying them the right to appellate review of the trial court's imposition of sanctions. We do not believe an individual's right to appellate review should be so constrained, especially in this context, in which the most severe sanction—incarceration—is used to coerce compliance with a trial court's order.
Under federal law, "[t]he right of a nonparty to appeal an adjudication of contempt cannot be questioned" even absent a final order. United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988) (in the context of finding a witness in contempt). We have also previously treated an appeal from non-parties held in civil contempt of court as an appeal by right, though the issue was never specifically raised or discussed. See, e.g., Droomers v. Parnell, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 30, 2005 (Docket No. 253455), 2005 WL 1540486 (nonparty officers of a corporation); In re Radulovich, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 10, 2001 (Docket No. 210779, 2001 WL 689558) (attorney who represented a party in an underlying matter). Although appellants have not been held in contempt, but sanctioned as decision-makers to enforce DIBC's compliance with the court's order, we conclude that the same principles apply. This matter is properly before us by means of a claim of appeal.
Appellants contend that they were not afforded due process because they were never put on notice that they were in jeopardy of being imprisoned as a result of DIBC's civil contempt. We disagree. Whether a person has been afforded due process is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. In re Contempt of Henry,
A trial court has inherent and statutory authority to enforce its orders. MCL 600.611; MCL 600.1711; MCL 600.1715. In civil contempt proceedings, a trial court employs its contempt power to coerce compliance with a present or future obligation, including compliance with a court order, to reimburse the complainant for costs incurred as a result of contemptuous behavior, or both. Porter v. Porter, 285 Mich.App. 450, 455, 776 N.W.2d 377 (2009). "Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor's compliance or inability to comply." DeGeorge v. Warheit, 276 Mich.App. 587, 592, 741 N.W.2d 384 (2007).
The trial court must carry out the proper procedures before it can issue an order holding a party or individual in contempt of court. In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 243 Mich.App. 697, 711, 624 N.W.2d 443 (2000). As opposed to a criminal contempt proceeding, in which some, but not all, of the due-process safeguards of an ordinary criminal trial are used, a civil contempt proceeding only requires "rudimentary" due process, i.e., "notice and an opportunity to present a defense. . . ." Porter, 285 Mich.App. at 456-457, 776 N.W.2d 377; see also Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994) ("Because civil contempt sanctions are viewed as nonpunitive and avoidable, fewer procedural protections for such sanctions have been required.").
Appellants assert that they are not DIBC and that "the fiction" underlying the trial court's January 12, 2012, order is that they are "tantamount to DIBC" and "stand in its place vis a vis the contempt proceedings." They also cite caselaw supporting the proposition that a corporation is a separate entity from its individual shareholders, officers, and directors. However, appellants have overlooked that a corporation can only act through its officers and agents. See In re Kennison Sales & Engineering Co., Inc, 363 Mich. 612, 617, 110 N.W.2d 579 (1961), quoting Stowe v. Wolverine Metal Specialties Co., 242 Mich. 624, 628, 219 N.W. 714 (1928). "`When a court acquires jurisdiction over a corporation as a party, it obtains jurisdiction over the official conduct of the corporate officers so far as the conduct may be involved in the remedy against the corporation which the court is called upon to enforce.'" Stowe, 242 Mich. at 629, 219 N.W. 714, quoting Tolleson v. People's Savings Bank, 85 Ga. 171, 11 S.E. 599 (1890). Courts will also disregard the separate existence of corporate entities when it is "used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. . . ." Paul v. Univ. Motor Sales Co., 283 Mich. 587, 602, 278 N.W. 714 (1938).
Because individuals who are officially responsible for the conduct of a corporation's affairs are required to obey a court order directed at the corporation, these same individuals may be sanctioned if they fail to take appropriate action within their power to ensure that the corporation complies with the court order. Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 376, 31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911). In Wilson, the United States Supreme Court stated:
See also Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union 58, IBEW v. Gary's Electrical Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 380 (C.A.6, 2003), and Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Tex., 1995). Accordingly, we reject appellants argument that they may not be held accountable for failing to ensure DIBC's compliance with the trial court's order.
Appellants further argue that they were not given notice to show cause why they should not be personally sanctioned, or given an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the United States and Michigan Constitutions and the notice requirements of MCL 600.l711(2) and MCR 3.606(A). When the contempt is committed outside the court's direct view (i.e., "indirect contempt"), as in this case, MCL 600.1711(2) allows a trial court to punish the contemnor by fine or imprisonment, or both, "after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other method and opportunity has been given to defend." For indirect contempt, the trial court must also comply with MCR 3.606(A), which, on a proper showing on ex parte motion supported by affidavits, requires the trial court to (1) order the accused person to show cause, at a reasonable time specified in the order, why that person should not be punished for the alleged misconduct or (2) issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person.
Appellants' citation of Auto Club, 243 Mich.App. 697, 624 N.W.2d 443, as support for their argument that the trial court was required to name them in the show-cause order is not persuasive. Auto Club is distinguishable because the persons accused of contempt, the attorneys, were capable of committing the contemptuous acts on their own, whereas a corporation cannot on its own, contemptuously or otherwise. Rather, as previously noted, a corporation can only act through its officers and agents. Appellants were responsible for ensuring DIBC's compliance with the February 1, 2010, opinion and order, regardless of whether they were parties to the underlying litigation or whether they were named in the trial court's opinion and order. The trial court held DIBC in civil contempt. The trial court found that appellants were the key decision-makers at DIBC, with the responsibility to ensure that DIBC complied with the court's order. Contrary to their claim on appeal, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding.
With respect to Moroun, he represented that he is a director of DIBC and that his trust is a minority shareholder in DIBC Holdings, which owns DIBC. Moreover, Moroun does not dispute that his living trust holds the majority of voting shares in DIBC Holdings. Moroun also acknowledged that he had been informed about the Gateway Project and the court's order regarding the Gateway Project, but claimed that authority over the Gateway Project and the litigation "has been the responsibility of Dan Stamper." He did not otherwise affirmatively assert that he had no authority or responsibility over DIBC or its affairs, and any such assertion would not have been credible.
Furthermore, the November 3, 2011, opinion and order finding DIBC in contempt affirmatively discussed the possible civil contempt sanctions, including imprisonment, and directed Moroun to appear at the sanction hearing. Moroun filed a motion to be excused from the hearing, which, from our perspective, was an attempt to avoid the possibility that he might be sanctioned for DIBC's civil contempt. Accordingly, we conclude that Moroun was provided notice that he might be sanctioned
With respect to Stamper, he was listed on the show-cause order, was present throughout the contempt hearings, and actively participated in DIBC's defense. He had also previously been imprisoned for DIBC's civil contempt in January 2011. Because there is no dispute regarding Stamper's authority over the company and the project, we conclude that he had notice that he might be incarcerated as a coercive sanction for DIBC's civil contempt and was provided an opportunity to be heard on the matter.
Appellants argue that their imprisonment was an improper use of the civil contempt power and was invalid as a matter of law because the trial court's order did not give them the "keys to their cell[s]." We disagree with appellants to the extent that they argue that incarceration was an improper use of the trial court's civil contempt power; however, we agree with appellants that the trial court erred by requiring their continued incarceration until DIBC "fully complied with" the February 1, 2010, order. We review a trial court's issuance of a contempt order for an abuse of discretion and the factual findings supporting the order for clear error. Porter, 285 Mich.App. at 454-455, 776 N.W.2d 377. "[R]eversal is warranted only when the trial court's decision is outside the range of principled outcomes." Id. at 455, 776 N.W.2d 377. To the extent that this Court must examine questions of law related to the trial court's contempt decision, our review is de novo. See DeGeorge, 276 Mich.App. at 591, 741 N.W.2d 384. The interpretation and application of the court rules and statutes are also reviewed de novo. In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142, 152, 782 N.W.2d 747 (2010).
Confinement or imprisonment may be imposed whether the contempt is civil or criminal in nature. Borden v. Borden, 67 Mich.App. 45, 48, 239 N.W.2d 757 (1976). In the civil context, the confinement must be conditional. See MCL 600.1715.
Civil contempt imposes a term of imprisonment that ceases when the contemnor complies with the court's order or when it is no longer within his or her power to comply. Borden, 67 Mich.App. at 48, 239 N.W.2d 757. MCL 600.1715 provides:
The trial court further found that DIBC had the power, resources, and knowledge
As previously noted, the trial court's January 12, 2012, order provides the following with respect to appellants' conditional imprisonment:
Because the purpose of civil contempt is to enforce compliance with an order, rather than to punish for disobedience, the contemnor may not be incarcerated beyond the time that he or she is able to comply with the court's order. People v. Kearns, 38 Mich.App. 561, 563, 196 N.W.2d 805 (1972), quoting Spalter v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 35 Mich.App. 156, 161, 192 N.W.2d 347 (1971). "Civil contempt seeks to coerce compliance, to coerce [the contemnor] to do what he is able to do but refuses to do." Borden, 67 Mich.App. at 48, 239 N.W.2d 757. In other words, the contemnor "carries the keys to his prison in his own pocket." Id. In Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828, 114 S.Ct. 2552, the Supreme Court further explained:
We cannot uphold the trial court's commitment order when the condition for release requires DIBC to "fully" comply with the February 1, 2010, order because it failed to identify "the act or duty" that must be performed before the incarceration may be terminated. MCL 600.1715(2). While appellants might have the present ability to commence and continue construction, they do not have the present ability to actually finish the construction in accordance with the directives set forth in the February 1, 2010, opinion and order for a period of 6 to 12 months.
Finally, appellants argue that further proceedings should be held before a different judge because the judge acted as both accuser and finder of fact and has become personally embroiled in the litigation. There has been no motion to disqualify the judge; therefore, there is no ruling for us to review. See Henry, 282 Mich.App. at 679, 765 N.W.2d 44, citing MCR 2.003. We further conclude that there is no merit to appellants' position that the judge acted as an accuser and finder of fact by imposing a sanction that was not requested by MDOT. The judge provided an adequate explanation of why other alternatives would not bring about compliance with its order.
Accordingly, we conclude that appellants properly appealed as of right because a nonparty individual sanctioned to enforce compliance with a civil contempt order directed at a party must be permitted to appeal even in the absence of a final order. We further conclude that appellants were afforded rudimentary due process, but the conditional confinement did not allow appellants to avoid the sentence by purging the contempt. Therefore, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. In light of the trial court's scheduled February 9, 2012, hearing, we give our judgment immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).
WILDER, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that this Court has jurisdiction of the claim of appeal filed in this action by appellants Manuel J. Moroun and Dan Stamper for the reason that, as they are nonparties to the underlying action by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) against the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC), the order that punished Moroun and Stamper for the civil contempt of DIBC is a final order appealable by right. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i); U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988).
Additionally, I agree that the trial court's January 12, 2012, order did not specify with particularity what action or actions Stamper and Moroun were required to take so that they were able to immediately purge themselves of the contempt finding made by the trial court against DIBC. First, no contempt finding was made against Moroun and Stamper. Only DIBC was found in contempt. Thus, any act to be performed by Moroun and Stamper was not to purge themselves of contempt for some unstated act in defiance
I disagree, however, with the conclusion in the lead opinion that there was sufficient notice to Moroun and Stamper.
There is no question that officers and agents of a corporation are bound to follow orders that are directed toward the corporation, even if those officers and agents are not named in the order itself. See In re Kennison Sales & Engineering Co., 363 Mich. 612, 618, 110 N.W.2d 579 (1961); Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Tex., 1995). Thus, Stamper as president of DIBC and Moroun as a director of DIBC were bound by the orders of the trial court directing certain action by DIBC, and they were required to avoid conduct that contributed to or caused DIBC to violate the trial court's February 1, 2010, order. From the fact that the trial court ordered them incarcerated, it is clear that the trial court concluded that Moroun and Stamper did or failed to do something that contributed to or caused the contumacious conduct of DIBC.
In a civil contempt proceeding, "rudimentary" due process is required. Porter v. Porter, 285 Mich.App. 450, 456-457, 776 N.W.2d 377 (2009). Specifically, this requires "notice and an opportunity to present a defense, and the party seeking enforcement of the court's order bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the order was violated." Id. at 457, 776 N.W.2d 377.
MCL 600.1711(2), addressing indirect contempt, provides that "[w]hen any contempt is committed other than in the immediate view and presence of the court, the court may punish it by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other method and opportunity has been given to defend."
MCR 3.606(A)(1), also governing contempt outside of the immediate presence of the court, provides in part that the court shall "order the accused person to show cause, at a reasonable time specified in the order, why that person should not be punished for the alleged misconduct." (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly,
This Court interprets court rules according to the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes. Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 490 Mich. 61, 70, 803 N.W.2d 271 (2011). "Our goal when interpreting and applying statutes or court rules is to give effect to the plain meaning of the text. If the text is unambiguous, we apply the language as written without construction or interpretation." Id. Moreover, if there is any conflict between the requirements of MCL 600.1711(2) and MCR 3.606, the court rule prevails. In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich.App. 656, 667, 765 N.W.2d 44 (2009). A trial court's substantial compliance with MCR 3.606(A)(1) is sufficient. See People v. Saffold, 465 Mich. 268, 273, 631 N.W.2d 320 (2001).
The plain and unambiguous language of MCR 3.606(A)(1) requires that, on a proper showing on an ex parte motion supported by affidavits, the accused person should be ordered to show cause why that person should not be punished for the alleged contempt. In this case, the ex parte motion, without referring to anyone in particular, asserted that "DIBC" did certain acts or failed to perform certain acts. Also, the June 13, 2011, order to show cause stated the following:
The show-cause order and the averments in the ex parte affidavit were insufficient to comply or substantially comply with the requirement that Moroun and Stamper be given notice that they personally could be punished because the documents pertained to DIBC's compliance with the trial court's February 1, 2010, order. Moroun's and Stamper's conduct was not mentioned in the ex parte affidavit or at the June 9, 2011, hearing pertaining to the ex parte affidavit. In addition, Moroun was not mentioned whatsoever in the show-cause order, and Stamper's identification in the order only directed him to show cause concerning DIBC's conduct. Moreover, when the show-cause proceedings commenced on July 7, 2011, the trial court did not advise Stamper that his personal conduct could be considered contumacious and was a subject of the show-cause hearings, and no statement was made on the record during the show-cause proceedings that Moroun's conduct was the subject of the hearings.
While these facts are not in dispute, the lead opinion overlooks these procedural defects by appearing to conclude that, because of Stamper's and Moroun's status as "key decision-makers," i.e., fiduciaries of DIBC, notice that their personal conduct and personal liberty were the subject of the show-cause hearing was obviously implied. But MCR 3.606(A)(1) does not permit constructive notice of the nature of the contempt proceedings and the alleged contumacious conduct—it requires actual notice. In my judgment, the lead opinion's interpretation of MCR 3.606(A)(1) as allowing such constructive notice runs afoul of the plain meaning of the court rule. See Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
Although there is no precedent directly on point in Michigan, the rationale for interpreting MCR 3.606(A)(1) as requiring all persons subject to a show-cause order, including corporate officers and directors, to be personally notified that they could be subject to punishment for contemptuous conduct is supported by caselaw from other jurisdictions that have addressed this very question. The principle that these other jurisdictions espouse can be summed up as follows: "`An officer of a corporation who participates in the disobedience of a court mandate is punishable for contempt provided he has been made a party to the contumacious conduct and due notice has been given to him.'" In re Snider Farms, Inc., 125 B.R. 993, 999 (Bankr.N.D.Ind., 1991), quoting 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contempt, § 61 (emphasis added); see also Spuncraft, Inc. v. Lori Jay Mfg. Co., 47 Misc.2d 780, 781, 263 N.Y.S.2d 211 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., 1965).
In Dole Fresh Fruit Co. v. United Banana Co., Inc., 821 F.2d 106 (C.A.2, 1987), the district court found three officers of the corporate defendant in civil contempt. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that even though the individuals were within the scope of the underlying order, it was improper to hold the individuals in contempt when it appeared that only the corporate defendant was a party to the contempt proceedings. Id. at 110. The court stressed that the three individuals did not know that they were "personally" going to be held in contempt. Id. This factual situation is nearly identical with the situation in the present case, in which both Stamper and Moroun were never notified that they could be individually punished.
Although the lead opinion does not agree, I would find that Auto Club, 243 Mich.App. 697, 624 N.W.2d 443, does support these principles. In that case, this Court reversed the trial court's finding of contempt against the defendant corporation because the corporation was not afforded notice. Id. at 718, 624 N.W.2d 443. The plaintiff instituted contempt proceedings against defense counsel personally, not the defendant corporation. Id. at 717, 624 N.W.2d 443. But at the conclusion of the show-cause hearing, the trial court found both the attorney and the corporation in contempt. Id. Thus, this Court concluded that the corporation was "denied its right to know the substance of the charges against it." Id. This Court further noted:
Just as the defendant in Auto Club was deprived of notice because it was never notified that it could be punished for contempt, the same can be said here of Moroun and Stamper.
In summary, I would hold that the unambiguous plain language and meaning of MCR 3.606(A)(1) requires that regardless of a person's status as a corporate officer or director of a corporation subject to a show-cause order, that officer or director is entitled to direct rather than implied notice to appear to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt or punished for specified contumacious conduct. Because such notice was not provided in the instant case, I would conclude that the contempt proceedings as they pertain to Moroun and Stamper were fatally flawed as violative of due process of law, and I would vacate the contempt sanctions imposed against them.
Finally, I also dissent from the panel's decision to give this Court's judgment immediate effect pursuant to MCR 7.215(F)(2). The panel has issued three authored opinions concerning the necessary due process of law to be accorded to corporate officials in a show-cause proceeding against a corporation. This issue has not been directly addressed by any Michigan precedent. Under these circumstances, I believe that exceptional issuance of our judgment is unwarranted.
FORT HOOD, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I join in and concur with the lead opinion in all respects except concerning the imprisonment sanction.
Individuals who conspire with others to violate court orders are equally liable and subject to contempt proceedings. ARA Chuckwagon of Detroit, Inc. v. Lobert, 69 Mich.App. 151, 159, 244 N.W.2d 393 (1976). When an order is entered by the court, it must be obeyed until it is judicially vacated. Id. at 161, 244 N.W.2d 393. The validity of the order is determined by the courts, not the parties. Id. "Our jurisprudence has long recognized the inherent power of a court of record to punish, by contempt citation, a party for wilful, continuous, and contemptuous disobedience of its orders." Id. at 162-163, 244 N.W.2d 393.
The circuit court has the authority to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, any neglect, violation of duty, or misconduct by "[p]arties to actions, attorneys, counselors, and all other persons for disobeying any lawful order, decree, or process of the court." MCL 600.1701(g). Contempt committed outside the immediate view and presence of the court may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other means and an opportunity to defend has been given. MCL 600.1711(2). MCL 600.1715
"The issuance of an order of contempt rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion." In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich.App. 656, 671, 765 N.W.2d 44 (2009). "We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to hold a party or individual in contempt." In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich.App. 96, 99, 667 N.W.2d 68 (2003). The trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and questions of law are reviewed de novo. Porter v. Porter, 285 Mich.App. 450, 454-455, 776 N.W.2d 377 (2009). "Clear error exists when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made." Henry, 282 Mich.App. at 669, 765 N.W.2d 44. "The abuse of discretion standard recognizes that there will be circumstances where there is no single correct outcome and which require us to defer to the trial court's judgment; reversal is warranted only when the trial court's decision is outside the range of principled outcomes." Porter, 285 Mich.App. at 455, 776 N.W.2d 377.
"The power to hold a party, attorney, or other person in contempt is the ultimate sanction the trial court has within its arsenal, allowing it to punish past transgressions, compel future adherence to the rules of engagement, i.e., the court rules and court orders, or compensate the complainant." In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 243 Mich.App. 697, 708, 624 N.W.2d 443 (2000).
"Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor's compliance or inability to comply." DeGeorge v. Warheit, 276 Mich.App. 587, 592, 741 N.W.2d 384 (2007). Criminal contempt, however, is designed to punish past disobedient conduct by imposing an unconditional and definite sentence.
Contempts are not necessarily wholly civil or altogether criminal because it is not always easy to classify a particular act as belonging to either class. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). The Gompers Court offered the following test to determine the character of the punishment and held that any indirect overlapping consequences did not alter the nature of the contempt:
Similarly, Michigan law provides that when conditional and coercive confinement is imposed, the contempt proceeding is civil. Borden, 67 Mich.App. at 49, 239 N.W.2d 757. Michigan statutes also hold that a "commitment to coerce performance may properly continue so long as it is within the power of the contemnor to comply with the court order." Id.; see also MCL 600.1715.
Furthermore, Michigan law recognizes two types of civil contempt sanctions, coercive and compensatory. In re Contempt of Rochlin, 186 Mich.App. 639, 646, 465 N.W.2d 388
The longstanding rule is that "a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become a retrial of the original controversy." United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 756, 103 S.Ct. 1548, 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Because civil contempt sanctions are viewed as nonpunitive and avoidable, fewer procedural protections for such sanctions have been required." Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994). Consequently, civil contempt "may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required." Id. at 827, 114 S.Ct. 2552. Due process does not require a full-blown evidentiary hearing, and contempt sanctions may even be imposed on the basis of uncontroverted affidavits. United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 995 (C.A.9, 1999); see also MCL 600.1711(2).
When civil contempt occurs, the trial court has inherent and statutory authority to order conditional imprisonment. Harvey v. Lewis, 10 Mich.App. 709, 717, 160 N.W.2d 391 (1968). "Theoretically, imprisonment for civil contempt might be forever so long as it is within the contemnor's power to comply with the court order he refuses to carry out[.]" Id. (emphasis added). The determination regarding the propriety of contempt is contingent on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. See Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 267, 279-280, 110 S.Ct. 625, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990); In re Simmons, 248 Mich. 297, 305-306, 226 N.W. 907 (1929); Stowe v. Wolverine Metal Specialties Co., 242 Mich. 624, 630, 219 N.W. 714 (1928); Wells v. Wells, 144 Mich.App. 722, 732, 375 N.W.2d 800 (1985). When selecting the appropriate contempt sanction, the court must use the least possible power necessary to achieve the proposed end. Spallone, 493 U.S. at 276, 110 S.Ct. 625. However, if the least possible contempt sanction approach fails to produce compliance within a reasonable period of
Because the objective of civil contempt is to enforce compliance with the court's order rather than punishment for a refusal to obey, one held in and incarcerated for civil contempt may not be incarcerated beyond the time that he or she is able to comply with the court's order. Spalter v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 35 Mich.App. 156, 161, 192 N.W.2d 347 (1971). "The contemnor must have the ability to comply with the court's order and the possibility of terminating his or her confinement and purging himself of contempt by complying." Borden, 67 Mich.App. at 49, 239 N.W.2d 757. "Promised future compliance with prior judicial orders is a common and appropriate method of purging contempt. Since future compliance is the court's objective in civil contempt proceedings, an assurance of such compliance by one deemed worthy of belief is a sensible basis for terminating coercive sanctions." Williams Int'l Corp. v. Smith, 144 Mich.App. 257, 266, 375 N.W.2d 408 (1985) (citations omitted), rev'd on other grounds 429 Mich. 81, 413 N.W.2d 392 (1987). The court is vested with broad discretion to determine the appropriate conditions through which the contemnor may purge the contempt. Midlarsky v. D'Urso, 133 A.D.2d 616, 519 N.Y.S.2d 724 (1987). The appellate court reviews the denial of a motion to purge a contempt order for an abuse of discretion. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Yashinsky, 170 F.3d 591, 594 (C.A.6, 1999).
Appellants contend that because the completion of the project will take approximately 9 to 12 months, do not have the ability to "immediately" purge the contempt and, therefore, do not have the keys to their jail cell. Appellants further contend that the trial court was obligated to impose the least restrictive sanction to compel compliance. Curiously, appellants fail to identify the least restrictive sanction or impetus that would prompt them into action on behalf of DIBC.
As indicated, the propriety of the contempt sanction is contingent on the facts and circumstances in each individual case, and although the least restrictive sanction should be imposed, a graduated penalty is appropriate when necessary. See Spallone, 493 U.S. at 276, 280, 110 S.Ct. 625; Wells, 144 Mich.App. at 732, 375 N.W.2d 800. The trial court is granted the broad discretion to determine the appropriate conditions through which the contemnor may purge the contempt. Midlarsky, 133 A.D.2d at 617, 519 N.Y.S.2d 724. Pursuant to Michigan caselaw, full compliance with the contempt order is not necessarily required; rather, a promise of future compliance or a good-faith attempt may be sufficient to purge the contempt. Williams Int'l Corp., 144 Mich.App. at 266, 375 N.W.2d 408.
In the present case, the facts and circumstances justified the order of confinement pending completion of the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project. The extensive and lengthy record demonstrates that the trial court ordered completion of the project. Rather, than comply with the trial court's order, DIBC filed multiple claims of appeal,
Furthermore, the contention that appellants are without the means or the knowledge to immediately purge the contempt is without merit. The design of coercive civil contempt sanctions is to achieve compliance, to force the contemnor to do what he or she refuses to do. Borden, 67 Mich. App. at 48, 239 N.W.2d 757. "Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor's compliance or inability to comply." DeGeorge, 276 Mich.App. at 592, 741 N.W.2d 384 (emphasis added). "The power to hold a party, attorney, or other person in contempt is the ultimate sanction the trial court has within its arsenal, allowing it to punish past transgressions, compel future adherence to the rules of engagement, i.e., the court rules and court orders, or compensate the complainant." Auto Club, 243 Mich.App. at 708, 624 N.W.2d 443. DIBC's conduct rose to the height of contempt. According to the factual findings of the trial court, it not only failed to comply with the trial court's order, but engaged in a process designed to render the project stagnant. This comes at a great cost to MDOT as well as the local community where the construction commenced, and the trial court must be entitled to use the ultimate sanction within its arsenal. Id. However, appellants have the right to move the trial court to purge the contempt, Spalter, 35 Mich.App. at 166, 192 N.W.2d 347, and can be released before the full completion by promises of future compliance or good faith efforts, Williams Int'l Corp., 144 Mich.App. at 266, 375 N.W.2d 408. In light of the fact that appellants can purge the contempt before the full completion of the project, I cannot conclude that the trial court's decision regarding the imprisonment constituted an abuse of discretion.
I would affirm the lower court's order in its entirety.
Although this MJI Benchbook and checklist are not authoritative, the MJI is a training division of the State Court Administrative Office of the Michigan Supreme Court.
