Albert Curtis Hutchins v. Karen Ruth Hutchins

Albert Curtis HUTCHINS v. Karen Ruth HUTCHINS

CA 97-429                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 30, 1997


1.   Contempt -- orders were final and appealable. -- The supreme court
     held that the contempt orders issued in the case were final
     and appealable.

2.   Contempt -- civil contempt citations entered by chancery court. -- Where
     appellant was held in "willful contempt" on a number of
     grounds having to do with his failure to comply with previous
     court orders concerning custody of the parties' son, the
     sanctions imposed were, in all but one instance, prospective
     and coercive in nature; those were civil contempt citations
     that were entered for the purpose of compelling obedience to
     orders and decrees made for the benefit of the parties.

3.   Contempt -- criminal contempt citation entered by chancery court. -- Where
     one of the chancery court's orders fined appellant outright
     for having written on the child's underwear a message to
     appellee having to do with his allegation that appellee had
     sexually abused the child, that obviously final order was
     entered to punish appellant for disobedience to a previous
     order not to do or say anything that would lead the child to
     believe that he was unsafe in the custody of either parent; as
     it was punitive in nature, that order was a criminal contempt
     citation.
4.   Contempt -- civil contempt orders stayed under federal law -- criminal
     contempt order not stayed. -- The supreme court held that all
     actions with respect to the civil contempt orders were stayed
     in the chancery court and in the court of appeals until the
     lifting by the federal bankruptcy court of the automatic stay
     provided for in 11 U.S.C.  362(a)(1); the court held that the
     criminal contempt order was not stayed.


     Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal Granted; Proceedings
Stayed in Part.
     Laurie A. Bridewell, for appellant.
     Karen Ruth Hutchins, pro se.

     Per Curiam.               
     This appeal was filed in the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  The
appellee, Karen Ruth Hutchins, moved to dismiss the appeal on the
ground that there was no final, appealable order.  The appellant,
Albert Curtis Hutchins, responded to the effect that the orders
being appealed are contempt orders which are final.  In his
response, Mr. Hutchins stated that he had filed a federal
bankruptcy petition and that Ms. Hutchins had petitioned the
federal Bankruptcy Court for relief from the automatic stay of
proceedings required by 11 U.S.C.  362(a)(1).  Ms. Hutchins's
petition for relief from the stay was pending when the response to
this motion was filed.  Mr. Hutchins also asked for additional time
to file his abstract and brief.  The Court of Appeals certified the
motion to this Court because this Court has not determined the
effect of the "automatic stay" provision of 11 U.S.C.  362(a)(1)
upon contempt proceedings.  We hold that the contempt orders are
final and appealable.  Some of them are merely coercive and thus
civil in nature.  Those orders are stayed by the federal law.  One
of the orders is a criminal contempt citation.  It is not stayed by
the federal bankruptcy law.  Further consideration of the case will
remain with the Court of Appeals.
     Mr. Hutchins was held in "willful contempt" on a number of
grounds having to do with his failure to comply with previous court
orders concerning custody of the Hutchinses' son, Joseph.  The
sanctions imposed were, however, in all but one instance
prospective and coercive in nature.  Those were civil contempt
citations which were entered for the purpose of compelling
obedience to orders and decrees made for the benefit of the
parties.  Bates v. McNeil, 318 Ark. 764, 888 S.W.2d 642 (1994);
Fitzhugh v. State, 296 Ark. 137, 752 S.W.2d 275 (1988).
     One of the Chancery Court's orders was, however, a criminal
contempt order.  It fined Mr. Hutchins $50 outright for having
written on the child's underwear a message to Ms. Hutchins having
to do with his allegation that Ms. Hutchins had sexually abused the
child.  That obviously final order was entered to punish Mr.
Hutchins for disobedience to its previous order not to do or say
anything that would lead the child to believe he was unsafe in the
custody of either parent.  As it was punitive in nature, that order
was a criminal contempt citation.  Fitzhugh v. State, supra.
     All actions with respect to the civil contempt orders are
stayed in the Chancery Court and in the Court of Appeals until such
time as the automatic stay provided for in 11 U.S.C.  362(a)(1)
has been lifted by the Bankruptcy Court.  The criminal contempt
order is not stayed.  See In re Allison, 182 B.R. 881 (N.D. Ala.
1995); In re Kearns, 168 B.R. 423 (D. Kan. 1994); Stovall v.
Stovall, 126 B.R. 814 (N.D. Ga. 1990); In re Roussin, 97 B.R. 130
(D.N.H. 1989).