Opinion
No. 2013AP1666.
2013-12-27
In re the Finding of Contempt in In re the Marriage of: Paula MANSHOLT, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Mehrdad (Mike) KAJIAN, Respondent–Appellant, BMO Harris Bank, Garnishee.
Id. (second emphasis added). As the circuit court noted at the May 23 hearing on Mansholt's contempt motion, § 785.03 only required that Kajian receive notice and a hearing before the court could properly sanction him for contempt and “nothing in [§ 785.03] indicates that there has to be personal service.” Kajian contends that the first and last sentences of this provision require that a contempt motion be served upon Kajian himself. We disagree. As Mansholt points out, this subsection deals with limitations on substitute service. The first sentence states: “Whenever under these statutes, service of pleadings and other papers is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, the service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party in person is ordered by the court.” Id. The nonapplication of this first sentence to service “of any paper to bring a party into contempt of court” (as indicated by the last sentence) does not create a requirement that service be made personally upon the party. More significantly, as Mansholt also points out, “nowhere in [§ ] 801.14(2) does it require personal service of a contempt motion.”