When damages are awarded under Minn. Stat. ยง 588.11, the amount of the indemnification "must be based on proof of the damage actually sustained." Campbell v. Motion Picture Mach. Operators, 151 Minn. 238, 242, 186 N.W. 787, 789 (1922) (referring to predecessor of Minn. Stat. ยง 588.11); see Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 441 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating same rule under current statute). Appellant argues that the part of the receiver's bill that accrued before the receiver contacted appellant "is not the result of [appellant] being uncooperative.
Finally, the party receiving the fees must actually incur the fees. Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 441 (Minn.App. 1986). There is little doubt that the award here was based on actual damages; the district court made its determination based on its review of the billing records reflecting the amount of attorney fees incurred.
This court has recognized this principle on multiple occasions. See, e.g., Rohrman v. Moore, 423 N.W.2d 717, 721 (Minn.App. 1988) (determining that father could not appeal conditional order finding him in civil contempt for failure to pay his child-support obligations); Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 440 (Minn.App. 1986) ("A contempt order is not appealable if it is an order which directs consequences only if the defendant fails to purge himself of his contempt."). Father's appeal is taken from the district court's February 12, 2021 order.
Thus, we reject the argument that the judgment was conditional and not appealable. See Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 440 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding appealable contempt order that "found contempt and imposed fines, costs and attorney fees"). After this appeal was argued and submitted for decision, the state filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.
Minn. Stat. ยง 588.11 (2018); see also Bowman v. Bowman, 493 N.W.2d 141, 144-45 (Minn. App. 1992); In re Marriage of Nelson, 408 N.W.2d 618, 622-23 (Minn. App. 1987); Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 441-42 (Minn. App. 1986). B.
"When reviewing a contempt order, the appellate court may reverse or modify only if it finds the [district] court abused its discretion." Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 441 (Minn. App. 1986); see also Mower Cty. Human Servs. v. Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d 219, 222 (Minn. 1996). The district court's factual findings in a contempt order are reversed only if they are clearly erroneous.
This reading of section 588.11 is supported by the caselaw where this court has upheld an indemnification award of attorney fees for greater than $250. See Westgor, 381 N.W.2d at 880 (affirming award of $500 in reasonable attorney fees and costs to the aggrieved party under section 588.11); Time-Share Sys. Inc., v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 441 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming award of $3,000 in reasonable attorney fees and costs to aggrieved party under section 588.11). Therefore, a district court may award more than $250 in attorney fees and costs as indemnification under section 588.11 and the award is not limited by section 588.10.
"When reviewing a contempt order, the appellate court may reverse or modify only if it finds the trial court abused its discretion." Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 441 (Minn. App. 1986). A district court abuses its discretion by misapplying the law.
"Civil contempt sanctions are intended to operate in a prospective manner and are designed to compel future compliance with a court order. . . ." Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d at 222 (quotation omitted); see also Time-Share Sys., Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 440-41 (Minn. App. 1986) (defining civil contempt as "the failure to obey a court order which benefits an opposing party in a civil proceeding" and civil-contempt sanctions as being "primarily to encourage future compliance with the order and to vindicate the rights of the opposing party"). Minnesota judicial decisions interpreting the contempt statutes have been guided by the civil-criminal distinction.
When reviewing a contempt order, we may reverse or modify only if we find the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order. See Time-Share Systems v. Schmidt, 397 N.W.2d 438, 441 (Minn.App. 1986) (citing Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301, 304 (Minn. 1986)). The facts in this case are undisputed.