Must parties preserve challenges to civil versus criminal contempt determinations? Dickman Family Properties v. White Explained

In Dickman Family Properties v. White, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important preservation issue in contempt proceedings, clarifying when parties must raise objections to a trial court’s characterization of contempt as civil versus criminal.

Background and Facts

During litigation between Dickman Family Properties and the Whites, witness Mark Wright submitted a declaration opposing the Whites’ summary judgment motion. Later, Wright’s deposition revealed significant inconsistencies with his declaration. The Whites moved for contempt, arguing Wright committed perjury and requesting attorney fees. The district court characterized the proceeding as criminal contempt requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then dismissed the contempt charge after finding insufficient evidence under that standard.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the Whites preserved their challenge to the court’s determination that the contempt proceeding was criminal rather than civil in nature. The characterization matters significantly because criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil contempt requires only clear and convincing evidence. The Whites argued their request for attorney fees made the proceeding compensatory and therefore civil.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the issue was not preserved. Although the Whites requested attorney fees, they never argued to the trial court that this request required treating the proceeding as civil contempt. When the court ruled from the bench that the proceeding was criminal, the Whites raised no objection. Even when objecting to the proposed order, they failed to challenge the criminal characterization or applicable burden of proof. The court emphasized that trial courts have discretion to determine whether contempt proceedings are civil or criminal based on their purpose.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of preservation of error in contempt proceedings. Practitioners must clearly articulate to the trial court whether they seek civil or criminal contempt and the corresponding standard of proof. Simply requesting attorney fees is insufficient to preserve an argument that contempt should be characterized as civil. When the court announces its characterization and burden of proof, parties must object immediately to preserve the issue for appeal.