Contempt order contingent on future action was not final, and therefore unappealable
by Melanie Thwing
City of Portage Des Sioux v. Lambert
(Missouri Court of Appeals, October 26, 2010)
Klaus Lambert and Constance Alt own real property in the City of Portage des Sioux, Missouri. Early in 2004, the city filed a petition for an injunction against them for violations of several ordinances about the safety and sanitation of buildings on their properties. An order was entered on April 27, 2004 that within 60 days of the judgment a red building and a boat be removed from the premises. The remaining structures on the property also were found to be in such a state of disrepair that they constituted a danger. The April 27 order included a directive that those buildings be restored, elevated or demolished within 180 days of the judgment.
By October 2006 the Lamberts and Alts had not complied, and on October 19, 2006 a second judgment was entered extending the deadline another 60 days for the red building, and another 180 days for the other buildings.
On August 4, 2009, the city filed a motion for contempt against each defendant. After a hearing, the court entered an order adjudging defendants guilty of contempt of court because of their failure to comply with the April 27, 2004 and October 19, 2006 orders. The court ordered defendants to pay a fine of $100.00 per day “until such time as they have purged themselves of this contempt by demolishing and removing the first building and the remaining buildings on the property.” It further ordered that “to ensure defendants['] compliance with the judgment of April 27, 2004, as extended by the order of October 19, 2006, and this judgment/order, if [defendants] fail to demolish and remove the red/rust colored building and remaining buildings on the property by November 30, 2009, the [city] is hereby authorized to demolish and remove the structures.”
The defendants appealed this August 2009 order; however, the Missouri Court of Appeals determined that the August 2009 order could not be enforced without an additional evidentiary hearing or external proof regarding defendants’ compliance (or noncompliance) with that part of the order requiring them to demolish their buildings by November 30, 2009. This rendered the enforcement conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future act, the performance of which was outside the record, making the judgment “not final,” and unappealable at the present time. “Generally, where the enforcement of a judgment is conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of future acts, the performance or non performance of which is outside the record, the judgment is deemed indefinite and unenforceable.” The Court of Appeals could not rule on a future act, which may or may not occur. The defendants’ appeal was dismissed.