(a) In cases of constructive contempt, an affidavit of the facts constituting the contempt shall be presented to the court or officer, who may either issue a warrant of arrest to bring the person charged to answer or, without a previous arrest, upon notice, or upon an order to show cause, which may be served by a sheriff or other officer in the same manner as a summons in an action, may commit the person to jail, impose a fine, or both, and make such order thereupon as the case may require.
(b) When the underlying case involves an obligation arising out of a consumer debt primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and the contempt is a failure to comply with judgment debtor disclosure requirements under section 491A.02, subdivision 9, or 550.011, bail must be set at $50. For a subsequent contempt for a failure to disclose in the same action, bail must be an amount set by the court after considering aggravating and mitigating factors. Bail posted under this section must be returned to the judgment debtor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case:
Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W.2d 39 (Minn. 1990).
Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W.2d 39 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 4× “" See Minn.Stat. §§ 588.04; 588.07 (contemplating the service of arrest warrant or order to show cause on contemptor).”
Braith v. Fischer, 632 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Appellant challenges the court’s actions as an abuse of discretion. Appellant’s argument is without merit.”
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota, 858 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 6× “First, counsel never presented the court with an affidavit of the facts constituting Brown’s constructive contempt, as required under Minn.Stat. § 588.04(a), when Brown failed to appear for the January 31, 2013, hearing.”
Clausen v. Clausen, 84 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 1957).
· cites it 5× “On the other hand the plaintiff contends that under § 588.04 the court could commit the defendant to jail upon notice or order to show cause without a previous arrest.”
State v. Tayari-Garrett, 841 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Appellant contends there was no evidence that she received notice to appear for her contempt hearing, and the prosecutor failed to produce an affidavit outlining the contempt charges to the district court under Minn.Stat. § 588.04 (2012). But appellant was charged with criminal…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Hughes Dev. Co., 684 F. Supp. 616 (D. Minnesota 1988).
· cites it 2× “Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act This Court need not determine whether the Hugheses have properly requested a six-month stay of foreclosure under Minn. Stat. § 588.04 . Because the Lombard Mortgage is void as a result of the rescission letter of June 20, 1984, the FDIC cannot…”
Westgor v. Grimm, 381 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 588.04, § 588.14; Clausen, 250 Minn.”
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones, 857 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 588.04 (2012). The Minnesota legislature has defined which acts are punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony.”
Op. Atty. Gen. 3a (Minn. Att'y Gen. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Similarly comprehensive schemes govern civil arrests for contempt of court ( Minn. Stat. § 588.04 (a)); juvenile delinquency 7 Civil liability in this area can be substantial.”
In re: The Burial of Irina Kurdyumova (Deceased). (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 588.04 (a) (2014). Kurdyumova contends that Crescent Tide was in contempt of the January 2014 order because it failed to place a nameplate on her mother’s grave.”
— Minn. Stat. § 588.04(a) — 1 case
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota, 858 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 2015).
“First, counsel never presented the court with an affidavit of the facts constituting Brown’s constructive contempt, as required under Minn.Stat. § 588.04(a), when Brown failed to appear for the January 31, 2013, hearing.”
— Minn. Stat. § 588.04(a)(2014) — 1 case
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota, 858 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 2015).
“First, counsel never presented the court with an affidavit of the facts constituting Brown’s constructive contempt, as required under Minn.Stat. § 588.04(a), when Brown failed to appear for the January 31, 2013, hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.