Must parties preserve arguments about civil versus criminal contempt classification? Dickman Family Properties, Inc. v. White Explained

Background and Facts

In Dickman Family Properties, Inc. v. White, defendants Donald and Sheila White moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff. In opposition, plaintiff submitted a declaration from witness Mark Wright. The court denied the Whites’ summary judgment motion. During subsequent discovery, Wright’s deposition testimony contradicted many statements in his declaration. The Whites then moved for an order to show cause, seeking to hold Wright in contempt for making a false declaration and requesting attorney fees for their efforts in responding to the declaration.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the contempt proceeding should be classified as civil or criminal in nature, which determines the applicable standard of proof. Criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence. The Whites argued on appeal that because they sought compensatory relief in the form of attorney fees, the proceeding was civil in nature.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The district court determined the proceeding was criminal in nature, finding its purpose was “to protect the authority and integrity of court processes.” Applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, the court dismissed the contempt proceeding. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, but not on the merits. Instead, the court found the Whites failed to preserve their argument regarding the proper classification of the contempt proceeding. The Whites never objected when the district court characterized the proceeding as criminal, nor did they raise the civil/criminal distinction in their written submissions or objection to the proposed order.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of preservation of error in appellate practice. Parties must specifically raise legal issues to the trial court to preserve them for appeal. When initiating contempt proceedings, practitioners should clearly articulate whether they seek civil or criminal contempt and the specific purpose underlying their motion. The court’s discretion in classifying contempt proceedings is reviewed only for abuse of discretion, making preservation even more crucial for meaningful appellate review.