In re Feiock
California Court of Appeal
215 Cal. App. 3d 141, 263 Cal. Rptr. 437 (1989)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Phillip Feiock was ordered to pay child support for his three children as part of a dissolution action. Feiock did not make all the payments, and an enforcement action was filed against him that resulted in a temporary order of support of $150 per month. Feiock did not make all those payments either, and a contempt action was brought against him. At the contempt hearing, the judge applied California Code of Civil Procedure § 1209.5, which mandated a presumption of prima facie evidence of contempt after proof of noncompliance with a valid court order. Despite Feiock’s attempt to try to prove his inability to pay, the trial court sustained the contempt allegations. Feiock argued that the mandatory presumption in § 1209.5 violated his federal constitutional due-process rights. The appellate court agreed, but on a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, that decision was vacated for further proceedings to determine whether the contempt was civil or criminal, because the Court opined that federal constitutional due-process rules do not apply to civil contempt. On remand, Feiock argued that his inability to pay is an affirmative defense to the contempt finding.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wallin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
