There now is a fascinating TV Series about a man whose life lasts forever, which is aptly called Forever. It’s a greatly entertaining show. But I digress. Point here is, contempt purge are not like the TV show. They simply cannot last forever.
In Wellons v. White, the Court of Appeals reminded again that a civil contempt order must have a purge that is not “impermissibly vague.” Just as importantly, the purge must be finite, meaning that there should be an end to the punishment. (If you really need something that lasts forever, consider diamonds. Or a permanent injunction.)
In Wellons, the trial court’s only direction for purging the contempt was: “by fully complying with the terms of the [trial court’s prior orders.]”
The distressed contemnor appealed, complaining in his brief that under the trial court’s order he would
never be able to purge himself […], as the [contempt order] hold[s] him to strict restrictions for an indefinite period of time.
To purge himself,—the contemnor argued,—he must
predict the Court’s interpretations of the purging requirements […] and hope that the opposing parties do not disagree with those predictions. The requirements set out by the trial court are not a purge at all,—complained the contemnor,—but instead a continuing sentence with the looming threat of incarceration. . .
The Court of Appeals agreed with the appellant and reversed. On the subject of the specificity of the purge, the Court quoted its own earlier decision in Cox v. Cox in which it also reversed a contempt order on account of a similarly vague (and therefore defective) purge: “a contempt order must clearly specify what the defendant can and cannot do.”
The North Carolina Court of Appeals did not take kindly to the “forever” purge requirement, writing “We will not allow the district court to hold Mr. White indefinitely in contempt.”
Seriously, try the
