Haughton v. Haughton

RODOWSKY, Judge. Appellant, Kenneth C. Haughton (Kenneth), and appellee, Catherine M. Haughton (Catherine), were divorced by decree of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City dated May 28, 1987. Incorporating a provision of the marital settlement agreement between the parties, that decree ordered Kenneth to pay certain joint, consumer credit debts of Kenneth and Catherine. Kenneth failed to do so, resulting in a judgment ordering his imprisonment for civil contempt.

Because that order violates the Maryland constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt, we shall reverse. By the fourth paragraph of the divorce decree, the court ⁴⁶² “ORDERED that the defendant, Kenneth C. Haughton, by agreement of the parties, assume responsibility for the following: (a) Choice [account number] approximate balance $1,656.20; (b) Maryland National [account number] approximate balance $2,298.46; (c) First Omni Master-Charge [account number] [sic] a VISA [account number] total approximate debt $1,910.45.” Catherine relinquished, pursuant to the decree, any right to use these accounts. The record does not reflect when Kenneth ceased making installment payments on one or more of these accounts. In any event the circuit court, spurred by a pro se letter from Catherine who was being pressed by those creditors, issued an order for Kenneth to show cause why he should not be found in contempt.

After having granted Kenneth two extensions, the court (Kenneth Lavon Johnson, J.) on January 27, 1989, ordered Kenneth held in contempt of the May 28, 1987, order. Judge Johnson’s order further provided that Kenneth could purge himself of the contempt by paying directly to Catherine $3,000 “to be applied pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the May 28, 1987 Order.” Kenneth, on January 30, 1989, filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. The next day he petitioned the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a writ of habeas corpus. That petition was assigned for hearing to Judge Elsbeth Levy Bothe.

Judge Bothe granted the writ and, after expressing reservation over the use of habeas corpus in lieu of a direct appeal, ordered Kenneth released. She reasoned that Judge Johnson’s order did not on its face reflect a finding of Kenneth’s ability to pay, and she was satisfied that Kenneth was unable to pay. Approximately two weeks later, on February 24, Catherine filed another pro se petition in the divorce action, reciting that she had been sued by one of the creditors and that she had submitted to a judgment by consent under which the creditor agreed to forebear a wage garnishment. Kenneth was again ordered to show cause.

At a hearing on March 16 Judge Johnson observed that he had previously ⁴⁶³ found Kenneth able to pay. The court orally ruled that Kenneth was in contempt and remanded him to custody under the January 27 order. Entry of judgment on the docket based on the March 16 ruling was deferred until March 28. That same date the court also ordered Kenneth’s release from custody on his own recognizance and ordered a stay of further contempt proceedings pending this appeal. 1 We issued the writ of certiorari on our own motion prior to consideration of Kenneth’s appeal by the Court of Special Appeals.

Catherine has not filed any brief or otherwise appeared in this Court. Kenneth’s brief raises a number of issues, but the first issue, resting on the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt, is dis-positive. 2 Maryland Constitution, Art. Ill, § 38 declares: “No