County of Lake v. Superior Court of Lake Cty.

California Court of Appeal Mar 4, 1977 No. Civ. No. 40268Published

Before: Kane

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the contempt orders were void because the initial order failed to include a required finding that the act was within the contemner's power to perform, and the subsequent orders were void because the court lacked jurisdiction to amend a final contempt judgment.

Issues

Whether a contempt order under Code of Civil Procedure section 1219 is void for failing to find that the act is within the contemner's power to perform.
Whether a court retains jurisdiction to amend a final contempt judgment to correct judicial errors after the judgment has been signed.

Disposition. Annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A contempt judgment issued under the provisions of section 1219 “must not only specify the act to be performed; it must also include a finding that such act is within the power of the contemner to perform. Otherwise, it is void.””

“judgments and orders of a court or judge made in cases of contempt are final and conclusive (§ 1222), and the court or judge retains no jurisdiction to alter a completed judicial act.”

“We hold that the deficiencies in the order of November 15, 1976, were clearly the result of judicial error, and that the court retained no jurisdiction to enter new and different judgments on November 18, 1976.”

[817]Opinion

KANE, J. Petitioners, County of Lake, individual members of the Board of Supervisors, and the county Administrative Officer of the County of Lake, seek review of orders of contempt issued by respondent superior court on November 15 and 18, 1976, finding them in contempt of court for willful violations of orders issued by the court on July 9 and 30, 1976, and committing them to the county jail until such time as they perform acts specified by the court. We stayed enforcement of the orders pending final determination of the merits of this petition.

This proceeding arises out of the failure of petitioners to conduct a survey and conform the salary schedule as required by Lake County Ordinance, section 14-3 (3.1), and to meet and confer in good faith with representatives of real party in interest Lake County Employees’ Association as required by Government Code, section 3505, as ordered by the court. We need not consider the validity of the temporary restraining order issued by the court on July 9, 1976,, nor of the injunction issued by the court on July 30, 1976, disobedience of which forms the basis of the contempt orders, for we have concluded that the orders of contempt and the warrants of commitment based thereon are void.

It is apparent that the court elected to proceed under the. provisions of section 1219 of the Code of Civil Procedure1 in order to compel petitioners to perform the specified acts. Unlike a commitment under section 1218, which authorizes imprisonment for a definite term, a commitment under section 1219 is provisional. Under section 1219, a contemner may be imprisoned until he has performed an act “which is yet in the power of the person to perform.”

Although the order of November 15, 1976, finds that petitioners had the ability to comply with the restraining order and the order issued on July 30, 1976, it does not include a finding that the act to be performed is presently within the power of the contemners to perform. A contempt judgment issued under the provisions of section 1219 “must not only specify the act to be performed; it must also include a finding that such act is within the power of the contemner to perform. Otherwise, it is void.” (In re Wells (1946) 29 Cal.2d 200, 202 [173 P.2d 811]; In re Liu (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 135, 146 [78 Cal.Rptr. 85]; In re Moulton (1950) [818100]

County of Lake v. Superior Court of Lake Cty.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief