The High Court released its slip opinion on July 6 through Justices pro tem Timothy H. Bellas, Jesus C. Borja and Edward Manibusan.
Attorney Michael A. White represented the plaintiff.
Appellants John S. Ruben and Mona S. Ruben through their counsel Jane Mack of the Micronesian Legal Services Corporation requested a rehearing on a Supreme Court decision on the grounds that the high court erred by deciding moot issues in her appeal, failing to use the plain meaning of the phrase “method of payment” found in the Commonwealth’s order-in-aid of judgment statute and inadequately addressing her argument that the trial court’s decision violated her Thirteenth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court holds that their opinion properly addressed the issues and denied the petition for rehearing.
The facts of this case stemmed from a 1994 trial court judgment entered against the couple following reposition of their car by the plaintiff. The trial court ordered Ruben to pay $50 per month toward the judgment but when she failed to do so, BOG moved to place her in contempt.
The trial court heard the matter in Nov. 2004. Ruben appeared without a counsel and the trial court found her in contempt and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. The jail term was suspended on the condition that Ruben actively sought work. She was ordered to register with employment agencies and file 10 job applications but she failed to find a job. She was ordered to file 10 more job applications which she failed to do so. The trial court again found Ruben in contempt, but did not impose a jail sentence.
Ruben appealed and said that she was entitled to counsel during civil contempt proceedings that threatened her loss of liberty. She argued that the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevented her from being forced to work as a condition of her sentence being suspended, and the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to work when her husband was already paying on the debt using marital property.
The high court agreed that Ruben was entitled to a counsel during the proceedings but it ruled against the other two issues and remanded the case to the trial court.
The high court ruled that its decision to order Ruben to seek employment does not place her at risk of imprisonment but rather the violation of the order places her at the risk of the imposition of jail time for contempt. The Supreme Court found no grounds to grant Ruben’s petition.
“This court did not ignore or incorrectly construe any legal issues or factual matters alleged by Ruben, thus we deny the petition for rehearing,” the high court justices held.
