Opinion
Record No. 0971-92-2
December 7, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY LEE A. HARRIS, JR., JUDGE.
(Murray L. Steinberg, pro se, on briefs), for appellant.
(Murray J. Janus; Deanna Dworakowski; Bremner, Baber Janus, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Barrow, Bray and Senior Judge Cole.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decisions of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
The father appeals the April 23, 1992, order from the Circuit Court of Henrico County finding him in contempt of court for violating its order prohibiting him from harassing Katherine T. Steinberg, the mother of his daughter, Chelsea. At the hearing on this matter, the judge received conflicting testimony and found that the father had entered the mother's home without invitation and refused to leave when asked. The court found this conduct amounted to harassment, held the father in contempt of court, sentenced him to ten days in jail, (eight days suspended), and ordered him to pay the mother's attorney's fees. The father claims eleven separate grounds of appeal.
Since the father filed this appeal, his other appeals have been decided by this Court. Steinberg v. Steinberg, Record Nos. 1839-91-2, 2036-91-2 and 2172-91-2 (Va.Ct.App. February 9, 1993 and Steinberg v. Steinberg, Record Nos. 0534-92-2 and 1678-92-2 (Va.Ct.App. June 15, 1993).
On appeal, we view "the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the prevailing party below," and will not disturb "[t]he judgment of a trial court sitting in equity, when based on evidence heard ore tenus . . . unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 422, 364 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1988).
I. Holding The Father in Contempt
The father claims that the trial court erred in holding him in contempt of court because the testimony was in conflict. We disagree. The court's factual determination that the father had violated its order is supported by the evidence; thus, we decline to disturb it. Peple, 5 Va. App. at 422, 364 S.E.2d at 232.
II. Signing Show Cause Order
The father argues that the trial court erred in signing the mother's show cause order of February 28, 1992. We find no error. The show cause order did not make findings of fact; it only recited the claim of harassment and alleged facts in support of the order. The father had notice and an opportunity to dispute the allegation that he had harassed his ex-wife.
III. Court's Authority to Find That The Father Had Harassed The Mother in Violation of its Order
The father claimed that the court lacked authority to order him not to harass the mother and failed to adequately define "harassment." We find no error. First, the initial order of April 23, 1991, prohibiting the father from harassing the mother, is not the subject of this appeal. Second, the court's contempt powers permit the court to enforce its orders. Code § 18.2-456. Finally, the term "harassment" is commonly used and understood. See, e.g., Code § 8.01-42.1 (providing for civil action for racial, religious, or ethnic harassment, etc.); Code § 8.01-271.1 (permitting sanctions against those who file suits to harass); Code § 55-248.18 (forbidding landlord from using access to rental units to harass tenants); Perkins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 7, 16, 402 S.E.2d 229, 233 (1991) (holding that persons of reasonable intelligence understand intent to "coerce, intimidate, or harass" (emphasis added).
IV. Sentencing The Father to Jail Time
The father objects that the court erred in sentencing him to ten days in the county jail (eight suspended), for harassing the mother. He cites no authority in his argument, merely alleging that sending him to jail was "absurd." Where an argument is not fully developed in an appellant's brief, it need not be addressed on appeal. Rogers v. Rogers, 170 Va. 417, 421, 196 S.E.2d 586, 588 (1938). "Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit appellate consideration. We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant's contention and correct deficiencies in a brief."Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992).
Because the trial court's factual finding that father had harassed mother in violation of its order is supported by the evidence, we will not disturb the finding on appeal.Peple, 5 Va. App. at 422, 364 S.E.2d at 237. It is within the court's contempt powers to sentence an individual to jail time for contempt. Code § 18.2-456.
V. Discrimination in Awarding Attorney's Fees.
The father claims that requiring him to pay the mother's attorney's fees was error because he could not afford it and because it discriminated against him as a father. We find no error. "[A] court has discretionary power to award counsel fees incurred by an aggrieved party incident to contempt proceedings instituted and conducted to obtain enforcement of an order of the court." Carswell v. Masterson, 224 Va. 329, 332, 295 S.E.2d 899, 901 (1982). The trial court was within its discretion in awarding the mother attorney's fees. We find that the father's unsupported discrimination claim is without merit. See Buchanan, 14 Va. App. at 56, 415 S.E.2d at 239.
VI. Code § 20-71.1
The father claims that Code § 20-71.1 is invalid. This section applies to cases of desertion and non-support and is thus inapposite.
VII. Court's Refusal to Sanction The Mother
The father complains of the court's failure to sanction the mother for filing what he claims was a groundless show cause order against him. However, the fact finder resolved the conflicts in testimony against the father. Peple, 5 Va. App. at 422, 364 S.E.2d at 237. Moreover, "[w]e apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a trial court's award or denial of a sanction." Oxenham v. Johnson, 241 Va. 281, 287, 402 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1991). We find no abuse of discretion on this issue.
VIII. Validity of Show Cause Order
The father claims that the show cause order assumed his guilt. We disagree. "The movant in a show-cause proceeding has the burden of proving the premise of the show-cause order."Heacock v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 235, 241, 321 S.E.2d 645, 648 (1984).
IX. Assumption of Jurisdiction
The father once again attempts to challenge the circuit court's initial assumption of jurisdiction in 1991. This portion of the case has already been decided and affirmed and will not be reviewed again. Steinberg v. Steinberg, Record Nos. 1839-91-2, 2036-91-2, and 2172-91-2 (Va.Ct.App. February 9, 1993).
X. Waiver of Trial by Jury
The father again complains that the record does not include his waiver of trial by jury. This argument is without merit. A contempt action embodies an exception to the general rule requiring trial by jury where liberty is at stake. Yoder v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 823, 827-28, 57 S.E. 581, 583 (1907);Powell v. Ward, ___ Va. App. ___, ___, 425 S.E.2d 539, 542 (1993). The court's power to punish for contempt without resort to a jury is limited to "petty contempts," those carrying a penalty not exceeding six months. Id.; Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 495, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2701 (1974). The father had no right to a jury trial for a contempt sentence of ten days.
XI. Consideration of the Evidence
The father argues that the show cause order would have been invalid if this Court had found in his favor on his earlier appeals. Since we have found his earlier appeals to be without merit, we need not address this issue.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Affirmed.