Hercenberger v. Hercenberger

ORS 33.105(1) provides several options for a court to impose remedial sanctions. If a trial court has other lawful means to enforce a judgment, such as those provided by ORS 33.105(1)(f), any error in enforcing the judgment in the manner it chose is therefore harmless.

Respondent appealed an order of contempt and a supplemental judgment that awarded attorney fees incurred after a dissolution judgment. Respondent raised multiple arguments, including that Petitioner’s contempt motion was untimely, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the underlying judgment's provisions, and that the court's execution and exercise of a power of attorney on behalf of Respondent was an unlawful remedy for purported contempt. ORS 33.105(1) provides several options for a court to impose remedial sanctions. If a trial court has other lawful means to enforce a judgment, such as those provided by ORS 33.105(1)(f), any error in enforcing the judgment in the manner it chose is therefore harmless. The Court held that while the trial court's chosen sanction was unconventional, the existence of other lawful means through which it could have carried out the judgement negated any reversible error. Affirmed.