Addington v. Addington ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 9, 2003
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21352
_______________________
Lynnda M. Addington,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
Gerald D. Addington,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
02-CV-564
Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Gerald D. Addington challenges the district
court’s finding of contempt and order of sanctions for failure to
comply with various bankruptcy court orders relating to a
settlement agreement with Appellee Lynnda M. Addington, Appellant’s
former wife. Appellant contests the bankruptcy and district
courts’ subject matter jurisdiction and claims the district court
abused its discretion in finding Appellant in contempt and awarding
sanctions. We affirm the district court’s order.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The district court previously held, in a final judgment
between the same parties to the same core dispute at issue here,
that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction to
enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Therefore, the
Appellant’s reassertion of the same subject matter jurisdiction
challenge amounts to a collateral attack on the district court’s
prior judgment.
The Supreme Court has held that “[a]fter a Federal court
has decided the question of the [subject matter] jurisdiction over
the parties as a contested issue,” the court has no further basis,
absent an allegation of fraud, to revisit that decision. Stoll v.
Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 169, 171-72 (1938); see also Republic Supply Co.
v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046, 1051-53 (5th Cir. 1987) (adopting the
holding of Stoll). The Appellant does not allege fraud. Because
the question of subject matter jurisdiction has been finally
decided, we will not revisit the issue.
This court reviews both contempt findings and the award
of damages for abuse of discretion. Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied
Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 547, 578 (5th Cir. 2000). “The district
court’s underlying findings of fact are reviewed for clear error
and its underlying conclusions of law reviewed de novo.” Id. The
district court found that the Appellant failed to comply with both
the settlement agreement and a subsequent turnover order. These
factual findings are not clearly erroneous. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in finding the Appellant in civil
-2-
contempt. See In re Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc., 108 F.3d 609,
612 (5th Cir. 1997) (a civil contempt order “coerce[s] compliance
with a court order”).
The district court awarded the Appellee $14,568.75, which
represented her attorney’s fees for arguing the contempt motion, as
a sanction for the Appellant’s civil contempt.1 The district
court’s opinion sufficiently addressed the four factors outlined by
this court in Topalian v. Ehrman, 3 F.3d 931, 937 (5th Cir. 1993),
finding the attorney’s fees award to be the least severe sanction.
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sanctioning the Appellant in an amount equal to the Appellee’s
attorney’s fees incurred in arguing the contempt motion. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1
The Appellant argues that, by partially enforcing the settlement
agreement, the Appellee is bound by the election of remedies doctrine. It is
undisputed that the Appellee has not fully collected the amount owed her under
the agreement. On this basis alone, though others could be advanced, the
election of remedies doctrine does not apply. See Thornton, Summers, Biechlin,
Dunham & Brown, Inc. v. Cook Paint & Varnish, 82 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1996)
(the election of remedies doctrine bars relief when the choice between two
inconsistent remedies constitutes a “manifest injustice”).
-3-