Caldwell v. Caldwell

5 Citing cases

  1. Yonker v. Yonker

    423 S.W.3d 848 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Here, the trial court did not find credible Ex–Wife's assertions that she had to spend her cash as she did. Ex–Wife also relies on Caldwell v. Caldwell, 341 S.W.3d 734, 735–36 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) reversing a contempt and commitment order. In that case, “[t]he judgment of contempt and the commitment order themselves state[d] only conclusions, not facts, and, therefore, [we]re facially insufficient.”

  2. Caldwell v. Dewoskin

    Adv. No. 14-04013-399 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Jun. 27, 2014)

    " Caldwell v. Caldwell, 341 S.W.3d 734, 735 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). 10.

  3. Caldwell v. DeWoskin

    831 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2016)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive a bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to hear a federal case complaining of the defendants' actions in "seeking and executing" a state court's contempt orders but which did not challenge the state court orders themselves

    On May 17, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the Judgment of Contempt and Commitment entered against Caldwell, finding that the district court abused its discretion by not determining whether Caldwell had the financial ability to make the payment necessary to purge himself of contempt before ordering him jailed and did not make sufficient findings to support the judgment. Because the Court of Appeals found those two points on appeal “dispositive,” it did not address Caldwell's final point.SeeCaldwell v. Caldwell, 341 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). Although the Missouri Court of Appeals did not identify what Caldwell's “final point” on appeal was, the parties do not dispute that it involved an appeal of the state district court's determination that the automatic stay did not apply to the contempt proceedings.

  4. Caldwell v. DeWoskin

    529 B.R. 723 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

    On April 28, 2011, Defendants requested and were granted a payout order on the $25,000 bond to be paid to Lavender. On May 17, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of contempt entered against Caldwell, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to find that Caldwell had the ability to pay. Caldwell v. Caldwell, 341 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Mo.Ct.App.2011). Caldwell argued the automatic stay had been violated; however, the appellate court specifically stated it did not need to address the issue related to the automatic stay.

  5. Brown v. Brown

    680 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    It is true, that incarceration is only justified as a means of enforcing a contempt judgment if the contemnor has the ability to purge himself of the contempt, i.e., to pay the amount ordered by the previous judgment. Caldwell v. Caldwell, 341 S.W.3d 734, 736 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). However, as is the case with the contempt judgment, the burden remains on the contemnor to demonstrate an inability to pay once a prima facie case of contempt has been established.