Dalton v. Meister

Wisconsin Supreme Court
No information provided (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A non-party to an injunction cannot be held in contempt for its violation based on a court's inherent power, even if the non-party had actual notice of the order. Contempt is only proper if the non-party is found to be in privity with, acting in concert with, or aiding and abetting a party bound by the injunction.

Facts:

LeRoy Dalton obtained a judgment for over $151,000 against Howard J. Meister in a defamation action.
Meister owned a substantial number of shares in Universal Telephone, Inc. (UTI), a Delaware corporation.
To prevent Meister from disposing of his assets to frustrate the judgment, Dalton sought a court order concerning the UTI stock.
A court issued an injunction prohibiting both Meister, a party to the suit, and UTI, a non-party, from transferring the stock.
UTI was served with a copy of the injunction decree but was not a party to the injunction proceedings.
Approximately fourteen months later, UTI, aware of the injunction, registered the transfer of Meister's enjoined shares to the American City Bank and Trust Company pursuant to a foreclosure agreement between UTI, Meister, and the bank.

Procedural Posture:

LeRoy Dalton sued Howard Meister for defamation in a Wisconsin trial court and obtained a money judgment.
In the same action, Dalton sought an order to prevent Meister from transferring stock, and the trial court issued an injunction against both Meister and Universal Telephone, Inc. (UTI).
Dalton later filed a motion in the trial court for an order to show cause why UTI should not be held in contempt for violating the injunction.
The trial court found UTI in contempt of court.
UTI, as appellant, appealed the trial court's contempt order to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a court have the inherent power to hold a non-party corporation in contempt for violating an injunction when the corporation had notice of the injunction but was never made a party to the underlying legal proceeding?

Opinions:

Majority - Callow, J.

No. A court does not have the inherent power to hold a non-party in contempt for violating an injunction simply because the non-party had notice of it; personal jurisdiction is required. Injunctions operate in personam and generally only bind the parties to the action and those in privity with them. UTI was never made a party to the injunction proceedings and thus had no opportunity to be heard, meaning the court lacked personal jurisdiction to issue a binding order against it. While non-parties can be held in contempt if they act in concert with or aid and abet a party, the trial court made no such factual finding here, relying instead on a flawed theory of 'inherent power.' The court distinguished the case of United States v. Hall, which involved unique circumstances of a school desegregation order, noting that UTI's actions only affected the collection of a private judgment, not the frustration of a broad public remedy against an undefinable class of actors. Therefore, the contempt order is reversed, and the case is remanded for a factual determination of whether UTI was acting in concert with Meister, which could provide a proper basis for contempt.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the fundamental due process principle that an injunction cannot bind a non-party who has not had an opportunity to be heard, even with actual notice of the order. It clarifies the limited scope of a court's 'inherent power,' rejecting its use as a substitute for establishing personal jurisdiction or proving a non-party's complicity with a party. The ruling solidifies the traditional exceptions for contempt (privity, aiding and abetting, acting in concert) as factual inquiries, requiring specific findings rather than a blanket assertion of judicial authority. For future litigants, this case serves as a crucial reminder to formally join any entity they wish to bind with an injunction to ensure the order is enforceable against them.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dalton v. Meister (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature