The plaintiffs moved for a finding of civil contempt against a judgment debtor and sought orders under Rule 60.18(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine members of the debtor’s family in aid of execution.
They alleged breaches of several pre‑judgment orders and of a post‑judgment order requiring disclosure of financial information, as well as refusals to answer questions during a debtor examination.
The court held that orders made prior to judgment concerning liability and damages do not generally serve a purpose in post‑judgment execution proceedings and cannot ground a contempt finding once judgment has been entered.
The court further found that the alleged breach of the post‑judgment disclosure order was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be deliberate and willful.
Because the plaintiffs had not first sought an order compelling answers to disputed questions or exhausted available enforcement steps, the court also refused to order examinations of family members.
