In Wellons v. White, the Court of Appeals reminded yet again that a civil contempt order must have a purge that is not “impermissibly vague.” Just as importantly, that purge must be finite, meaning that there should be an end to the punishment. (If you really need something that lasts forever, consider a permanent injunction or diamonds).
The sentiment “Go think about what you did—and do not disobey me ever again” may work to discourage a puppy from ruining another pair of running shoes, but does not constitute a valid purge, the Court of Appeals ruled.
Unlike puppies, the human contemners get to learn in clear and certain terms how to get out of the doghouse.
In Wellons, the trial court's only direction on how the litigant might purge himself was: “by fully complying with the terms of the [trial court’s prior orders.]”
The distressed contemner appealed, complaining in his brief that under the trial court’s order he would never be able to purge himself [...], as the [contempt order] hold[s] him to strict restrictions for an indefinite period of time. To purge himself,—the contemner argued,—he must
predict the Court’s interpretations of the purging requirements [...] and hope that the opposing parties do not disagree with those predictions. The requirements set out by the trial court are not a purge at all,—complained the contemner,—but instead a continuing sentence with the looming threat of incarceration. . .
The Court of Appeals agreed with the appellant and reversed.
On the subject of the specificity of the purge, the Court quoted its own earlier decision in Cox v. Cox when it reversed a contempt order on account of a similarly vague (and therefore defective) purge: “a contempt order must clearly specify what the defendant can and cannot do.”
The Court did not take kindly at all to the perpetuum mobile purge, writing “We will not allow the district court to hold Mr. White indefinitely in contempt.”
