In a 10-page slip opinion released on Friday, the high court also ordered that the case be remanded to the trial court for proceedings.
Attorney Michael A. White represents the plaintiff, Pacific Financial Corp., while Attorney Jane Mack of the Micronesian Legal Services, Corp. represents the defendant Laurence C. Muna.
Pacific Financial filed a complaint against Lawrence C. Muna in Feb. 2002 stating that Muna was delinquent in paying the $8,176 in consumer debts he owed the company. Because Muna failed to respond to the complaint, the trial court entered a default judgment and ordered Muna to pay $60 per month to satisfy the judgment. However, Muna failed to make any payments for 12 months. In 2005, the trial court ordered him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the order.
Muna appeared at the contempt hearing without a lawyer and testified that he was unemployed for the nine months following the judgment rendered against him. He said he began working for three months prior to the contempt hearing, earning a net bi-weekly pay of $248. He also told the court he was providing support for his girlfriend and their four minor children.
After hearing Muna’s statement, the trial court determined that he had the ability to pay but he willfully failed to do so. He was found in contempt of court and was sentenced to 10 days in jail, all suspended on the condition that he pay $30 per month until the judgment was satisfied.
Muna appealed and argued that he was entitled to due process and the representation of a counsel. He said the court erred in failing to advice him of his right to counsel or appoint counsel before finding him in contempt and sentencing him to jail term.
The Supreme Court held that “nearly all courts addressing whether civil litigants are entitled to counsel when facing a loss of liberty…and that due process requires the appointment of counsel for indigent civil contemnors facing actual imprisonment.”
The order also stated that Pacific Financial admits that Muna should have been provided counsel in the present case once the trial court elected to impose its suspended jail sentence.
Muna was arrested on a bench warrant. He entered the courtroom and his liberty was challenged when the contempt hearing began because he was sentenced to jail. The high court stated that because Muna’s liberty was clearly at risk and was lost during the hearing, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in failing to advise Muna of his right to counsel.
The high court maintained that the trial court must inform alleged contemnors that they are entitled to be represented by an attorney, and if the contemnor cannot afford to pay the services of a lawyer, the trial court must advise that an attorney will be appointed at public expense. The high court further stated that the trial court must give an alleged contemnor reasonable time to either retain counsel, or be provided appointed counsel if he is an indigent before the contempt procedures will begin.
