785.01 Definitions. In this chapter:

(1) “Contempt of court" means intentional:

(a) Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;

(b) Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;

(bm) Violation of any provision of s. 767.117 (1);

(br) Violation of an order under s. 813.1285 (4) (b) 2.;

(c) Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or

(d) Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.

(2) “Punitive sanction" means a sanction imposed to punish a past contempt of court for the purpose of upholding the authority of the court.

(3) “Remedial sanction" means a sanction imposed for the purpose of terminating a continuing contempt of court.

History: 1979 c. 257; 1983 a. 189; 1993 a. 78; 2005 a. 443 s. 265; 2013 a. 321.

When a father ordered to pay support and annually provide financial records to his ex-spouse only provided the records the day before a contempt hearing, it was no longer possible to produce the information in a timely manner as was required. The circumstances made full compliance with the court's order impossible, and partial compliance with the court's order was ineffectual. Unless the court is able to fashion an alternative purge condition to compensate the mother and children for their loss, they and the court will be defeated. Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102, 304 Wis. 2d 1, 736 N.W.2d 85, 05-0534.

There need not be a specific injunction against a particular action to apply contempt sanctions to an order. An order that requires specific conduct, either to do, or to refrain from, specific actions, can be enforced by contempt. Neither sub. (1) nor case law requires that an order contain the specific term “enjoin" or “injunction" to allow the court to use contempt powers to enforce its orders, nor is the possibility of a separate civil action a bar to use of contempt to enforce a court order. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.

To allow a successor corporation to defend contempt based upon its agent's ignorance of court orders in the possession of the successor corporation and binding on both the predecessor and successor corporations would make a mockery of court orders. Understandable sympathy for an individual agent, when the agent acts in good faith, but without knowledge of what is in the files the agent is charged to administer, would permit easy corporate avoidance of responsibility by simply hiring a new employee with no actual knowledge of the order. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.