In re the Marriage of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-1769

In re the Marriage of:

Cornelia Michelle Bourquin aka
Cornelia Michelle Elzy Bourquin, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Scott Allen Bourquin,
Respondent.

Filed December 16, 2024
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Sherburne County District Court
File No. 71-FA-20-355

Kassius O. Benson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Tasya Rivera Martin, Terzich & Ort, LLP, Maple Grove, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Wheelock, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant-wife challenges the denial of her motion to hold respondent-husband in
constructive civil contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order. Because the
record reveals no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm.
2
FACTS
The marriage of appellant Michelle deux Spyce (wife) and respondent Scott Allen
Bourquin (husband) was dissolved on August 16, 2022. 1 The dissolution judgment
awarded wife a home that had been foreclosed upon by a bank and was under redemption.
And the judgment required husband to sign over to wife two checks issued by an insurance
company to cover the cost of repairing hail damage to the home’s roof.
On August 31, wife moved the district court to hold husband in contempt of court
in part for failing to sign over the insurance checks. The district court held a hearing on
October 27, during which it orally ordered (the 2022 order) husband to execute a power of
attorney (POA) by October 31, 2022, enabling his attorney to act on his behalf. The 2022
order further required husband’s attorney, pursuant to husband’s POA, to (1) communicate
with the bank to permit wife full access to the loan information for the foreclosed property
by October 31, 2022, and (2) sign the insurance checks and return them to wife by
November 4, 2022.
2
In August 2023, wife brought a second contempt motion, asserting that husband
failed to comply with the 2022 order and requesting that he be required to pay her $250,000
to purge the contempt . Following a hearing, the district court denied wife’s motion,

1 Wife sought and was granted a name change as part of the dissolution judgment. The
case caption reflects wife’s former name because “[t]he title of the action shall not be
changed in consequence of the appeal.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 143.01.

2 The district court later confirmed these requirements in a written order.
3
reasoning that husband was not in contempt because he had fully complied with the 2022
order.
Wife appeals.
DECISION
We review a district court’s decision whether to invoke its contempt powers for
abuse of discretion. Sehlstrom v. Sehlstrom, 925 N.W.2d 233, 239 (Minn. 2019). A district
court abuses its discretion when it makes “findings of fact that are unsupported by the
evidence, misappl[ies] the law, or deliver[s] a decision that is against logic and the facts on
record.” Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022) (quotation omitted).
Minnesota law authorizes district courts to impose criminal-contempt and civil-
contempt orders. State by Cunningham v. Iron Waffle Coffee Co., 990 N.W.2d 513, 519
(Minn. App. 2023). The distinction between the two is based on their purpose. Id.
Criminal-contempt orders are punitive in nature and vindicate the court’s authority by
punishing the contemnor for past disrespectful conduct. Minn. State Bar Ass’n v. Divorce
Assistance Ass’n, 248 N.W.2d 733, 741 (Minn. 1976). On the other hand, civil-contempt
orders are remedial devices designed to coerce future compliance with a court order.
Mower Cnty. Hum. Servs. ex rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d 219, 222 (Minn. 1996).
Contemptuous conduct is categorized as either direct or constructive. Minn. Stat.
§ 588.01, subd. 1 (2022); Iron Waffle , 990 N.W.2d at 519. Direct contempt arises from
actions taken in the presence of the court. Minn. Stat. § 588.01, subd. 2 (2022). In contrast,
constructive contempt results from out-of-court actions or omissions, including disobeying
a lawful court order. Id., subd. 3(3) (2022).
4
Wife argues that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to hold
husband in constructive civil contempt because (1) it clearly erred in finding that husband
complied with the 2022 order and (2) its decision is against logic and common sense.
Neither argument persuades us to reverse.
First, our careful review of the record reveals that husband fully complied with the
2022 order. Husband timely executed the POA, and his attorney communicated with the
bank via phone call and letter on October 31, 2022, authorizing the bank to communicate
with and grant wife access to the loan information. And husband’s attorney sent the two
endorsed insurance checks to wife, which she admitted receiving on November 4 and
November 9, respectively. In short, ample evidence support s the district court’s finding
that husband complied with the 2022 order.
Second, husband’s compliance with the 2022 order defeats wife’s argument that the
district court’s decision was against logic and common sense. Wife contends that
husband’s brief delay in providing the insurance checks resulted in her losing the home,
which, along with other actions husband took with respect to the dissolution, warrant
holding him in contempt.3 But “[c]ivil contempt proceedings are designed to induce future

3 Husband devotes a significant portion of his brief to the contention that the district court
misapplied the law when it required him to refinance a home-equity line of credit on a
property awarded to him and remove wife’s name from the loan. Because husband did not
file a related appeal, we do not consider this argument. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.02,
subd. 2 (providing that a party other than the appellant “may seek review of a judgment or
order in the same action by serving and filing a notice of related appeal”); Fish v. Ramler
Trucking, Inc. , 923 N.W.2d 337, 344 n.5 (Minn. App. 2019) (declining to address an
argument raised by a respondent when the respondent did not file a notice of related
appeal), aff’d, 935 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. 2019).
5
performance of a valid court order, not to punish for past failure to perform.” Mahady v.
Mahady, 448 N.W.2d 888, 890 (Minn. App. 1989) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that
at the time of the contempt hearing, husband had performed all of the acts required by the
2022 order. Simply put, there was nothing left for husband to do and nothing for the district
court to compel through a contempt order.
In sum, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
declined to hold husband in contempt of court.
Affirmed.