Conrad E. Koneczny v. Marie A. Koneczny ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
CONRAD E. KONECZNY
v. Record No. 1275-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
MARIE A. KONECZNY DECEMBER 19, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Thomas A. Fortkort, Judge
(Douglas W. Napier; Napier, Napier & Silek, on brief),
for appellant.
(Richard J. Colten; Elizabeth D. Teare; Surovell,
Jackson, Colten & Dugan, on brief), for appellee.
Conrad E. Koneczny (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court finding him in contempt and ordering him to pay
$31,451.53 to Marie A. Koneczny (wife) within 180 days. Husband
argues that there was no evidence he willfully violated the
court's decree and that wife's failure to present house repair
bills to him demonstrates that there was insufficient evidence to
justify a finding of contempt. Upon reviewing the record and
briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without
merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the
trial court. Rule 5A:27.
By order dated March 13, 1995, this Court remanded this
matter to the trial court to take whatever action was required by
Rules 5A:8(c)(2) and (d). By letter dated May 2, 1995, the trial
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
judge certified and forwarded to this Court a written statement
of facts. The written statement provides us with a record
sufficient to address the questions raised in husband's appeal.
The decision of the trial court is presumed correct and the
burden is upon the party seeking to reverse the court's decision
to prove that the decision was erroneous. Johnson v.
Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 391, 396, 404 S.E.2d 384, 387 (1991).
Husband and wife entered into a Property Settlement and Support
Agreement (Agreement) which was incorporated into the parties'
1988 final decree of divorce. Under the terms of that agreement,
husband agreed to pay wife monthly spousal support in the amount
of $1,400 and agreed to share half the costs of repairs on the
former marital residence.
Husband admits that he had failed to pay spousal support,
but alleges that there was no showing of bad faith to warrant a
finding of contempt. However, "'[t]he absence of wilfulness does
not relieve from civil contempt.'" Leisge v. Leisge, 224 Va.
303, 309, 296 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1982) (citing McComb v.
Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949))."Civil as
distinguished from criminal contempt is a sanction to enforce
compliance with an order of the court or to compensate for losses
or damages sustained by reason of noncompliance. . . . Since the
purpose is remedial, it matters not with what intent the
defendant did the prohibited act. The decree [is] not fashioned
so as to grant or withhold its benefits dependent on the state of
2
mind of respondents. . . ."
Id. (citing McComb, 336 U.S. at 191). Therefore, the trial court
was not required to find husband acted in bad faith before
holding him liable for the nonpayment of spousal support to wife.
Husband did not object to the admission of wife's list of
home repairs. The trial court determined that $16,146.07 of the
total amount of $32,292.15 were for home repairs for which
husband was partially liable under the parties' Agreement.
Husband was not responsible for the remaining balance, which the
trial court determined were home improvements. Husband's
liability for sharing the repair costs was not conditioned on
wife's presentation of bills or documentation. The trial court
was not required to find bad faith in husband's failure to pay
his share of these repairs. See id. Therefore, because wife
presented evidence of repairs for which husband had not paid his
share as required under the terms of the final divorce decree, we
cannot say the trial court erred in finding husband guilty of
civil contempt.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
3