Bailey, J.
Case Summary
James Whittaker (“Husband”) filed a petition seeking to have his ex-wife, Wilma Whittaker (“Wife”) held in contempt of court for her failure to pay sums designated as maintenance in a settlement incorporated into a dissolution decree. [Footnote omitted.] The trial court concluded that Wife owed Husband a fixed sum of $76,173.44, as of June 25, 2013, enforceable by execution but not contempt. Husband presents the sole, consolidated issue of whether the trial court reached an erroneous legal conclusion as to enforcement remedies. We reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to address the merits of Husband’s petition for contempt.
….
Here, the parties agreed that, when Wife began to receive her pension benefits, she would be liable to Husband for payments that would be treated as spousal maintenance for tax purposes. The Agreement further specified that the liability was enforceable as an obligation for spousal maintenance. At the same time, however, the Agreement contemplated an immediate lien against Wife’s property in the event of default. According to Husband, the trial court simply disregarded any provisions of the Agreement and treated Wife’s obligation for delinquent payments as if it were ordinary debt enforceable only through execution.
Due to the prohibition against imprisonment for debt in Article I, § 22 of the Indiana Constitution, and “because parties may enforce obligations to pay a fixed sum of money through execution as provided in Trial Rule 69, all forms of contempt are generally unavailable to enforce an obligation to pay money.” Cowart v. White, 711 N.E.2d 523, 531 (Ind. 1999). However, Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-10 provides in relevant part: “Notwithstanding any other law, all orders and awards contained in a dissolution of marriage decree or legal separation decree may be enforced by contempt[.]”
Thus, we are required to look at the original order sought to be enforced. A panel of this Court has observed:
if a final money judgment – one requiring a person to pay a fixed sum of money to the other party – is entered, contempt is not an available remedy for noncompliance. Indiana Trial Rule 69 is the correct remedy for noncompliance with a money judgment. However, in the absence of a money judgment, contempt is an available remedy for noncompliance with a dissolution decree.
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 871 N.E.2d 390, 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). In Mitchell, the Court concluded that the dissolution order (requiring the husband to pay the mortgage and credit card debts) did not constitute a money judgment requiring one party to pay a fixed sum of money to the other party and, therefore, the trial court was not barred from using its contempt powers to enforce compliance with the order. Id.
….
The instant case also involves a failure to perform an obligation set forth in a dissolution decree. In 2013, Wife was making monthly payments to Husband but the trial court was asked to determine the amount of arrearage. However, the computation of delinquency was not an original order for payment of a fixed sum. Nor did it transform an obligation incorporated into a dissolution decree into a fixed money judgment outside the parameters of Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-10.
Conclusion
The trial court erred in refusing to address the merits of Husband’s petition for contempt.
Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.