Opinion
DA 22-0031
05-24-2022
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTEMPT ORDER REGARDING: LYNDA SCHMEIDBAUER
ORDER
On January 20, 2022, Lynda Schmeidbauer, via counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court and served this Notice on the Sanders County Clerk of Court, the Sanders County Attorney, and a court reporter. The Notice further indicated that Schmeidbauer was appealing from a January 5, 2022 judgment entered in Cause No. DV-22-05 in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, Hon. James A. Manley presiding.
On March 16, 2022, Schmeidbauer filed her Opening Brief, which she served only upon the Sanders County Attorney. In the brief, Schmeidbauer argued that the District Court erred in issuing an Order of Contempt against her on November 10, 2021, without following the proper procedure or making a proper record. No parties filed a response and her case was then submitted to this Court for disposition.
We have reviewed this matter and determined it is not properly before this Court on appeal. From the record and Schmeidbauer's brief, it appears that Schmeidbauer was summoned as a potential juror under the District Court's Cause No. DC-21-07. On November 10, 2021, Judge Manley issued an Order of Contempt, finding Schmeidbauer in contempt for refusing to comply with the court's directions and fining Schmeidbauer $500, to be paid by November 30, 2021. Schmeidbauer did not pay and on January 5, 2022, Judge Manley issued a Judgment on Contempt, under its Cause No. DV-22-05, entering judgment against Schmeidbauer in the amount of $500.
The exclusive method of review of a contempt order, apart from exceptions not applicable here, is by application for writ of certiorari (also known as a writ of review). Section 3-1-523, MCA; Animal Found. of Great Falls v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 2011 MT 289, ¶16, 362 Mont. 485, 265 P.3d 659. Under Article VII, Section 2(1), of the Montana Constitution, and pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14, this Court is empowered to hear and determine such writs.
In this case, Schmeidbauer did not petition for writ but instead filed a direct appeal to challenge a contempt order. We cannot consider Schmeidbauer's challenge of the November 10, 2021 Order of Contempt on direct appeal, nor would deeming her filing to be a petition for writ of certiorari be sufficient to cure the deficiency.
First, M. R. App. P. 14(6) requires that a petition for writ must be served upon the district judge against whose ruling it is directed and upon all parties. In this matter, Schmeidbauer failed to serve Judge Manley.
Second, even if we were to either deem Schmeidbauer's appeal to be a petition for writ of certiorari, or to give Schmeidbauer leave to refile this matter as a petition for writ, and direct Schmeidbauer to serve the correct parties, there is no relief available to her as the time to file such petition expired well before Schmeidbauer filed her Notice of Appeal. A writ of review must be filed within 30 days of the date the district court enters its order finding contempt. Jones v. Mont. Nineteenth Jud. Dist. Ct, 2001 MT 276, ¶ 22, 307 Mont. 305, 37 P.3d 682. In Jones, we held that, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 5 (now renumbered as M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a)(i)), petitions for writs of certiorari to review contempt proceedings must be filed with the clerk of the district court within 30 days of the date the district court enters its order finding contempt. Here, Judge Manley issued his Order of Contempt on November 10, 2021. Schmeidbauer had 30 days from that date-until December 10, 2021-to file her petition for writ of certiorari in this Court.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to counsel for Schmeidbauer, the Sanders County Attorney, the Sanders County Clerk of Court, and Hon. James A. Manley, presiding District Judge.