Case Caption: Streibich v. Kaplanek, III et alCase Number: SCT-Civ-2024-0043Date: 06/04/2025Author: Willocks, Harold W.L. Citation: 2025 VI 13Summary: In an appeal from a June 25, 2024 order of the Superior Court holding the appellant attorney in contempt for violating a April 29, 2024 order and declaratory judgment, given that appellant was a party in the underlying lawsuit and the order in which he was held in “civil contempt” was issued in connection with the immediately appealable April 29, 2024 Order, this Court possesses jurisdiction over this appeal. It is not assumed that the trial court has correctly characterized a sanction as either civil or criminal, but this Court possesses jurisdiction over the instant appeal because a criminal contempt proceeding is a criminal proceeding independent of the main action and the adjudication therein is a judgment of conviction, and a criminal contempt order of punishment is considered “final” within the meaning of 4 V.I.C. § 32(a) and immediately appealable. Conclusions about the civil or criminal nature of a contempt sanction are properly drawn from an examination of the character of the relief. Here—premised on the content, context and language of the court's order finding the appellant in civil contempt, plus the testimony and evidence deduced at the show cause hearing, and considered in conjunction with the recognized purpose and intent regarding the imposition of civil contempt sanctions, along with this Court’s precedents—the reasonable conclusion is that the $500 sanction was a civil contempt sanction. A party may be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with a court order if (1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. Here appellant’s arguments against contempt are rejected. Proof of appellant’s noncompliance of the April 29, 2024 Order was clear and convincing, and he did not diligently attempt to comply with the court’s order in a reasonable manner. Therefore, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in holding him in civil contempt for violating the April 29, 2024 Order via his parked vehicle. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in holding appellant in contempt and did not err in imposing civil contempt sanctions against him in the amount of $500 (payable to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Cashier’s Office) and $2,200 (payable to the Law Offices of Duensing & Casner). Thus, the Superior Court's Contempt Order is affirmed.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion