What Does “Purge” Mean in Legal Context
The word "purge" has several different meanings as a verb and a noun in different contexts. Although most people would understand the common usage of "purging" as "getting rid of impurities," that more specific definition, as it relates to a court setting, means an option that lets a person avoid being found in contempt of court by either paying a fine or doing whatever work the court has ordered them to perform that they have not completed.
The term "purge" in a court order will be used when a court has assessed a fine per day against a person who was ordered to do something and has failed to do so. The fine will continue to accrue until the person makes the payment or performs the action that he or she was required to carry out in the first place. A purge is one way for the court to bring about compliance with an order . However, a purge may be brought forth if a person has been found to be in contempt. Sometimes that is a way for the court to deal with defiance of the court’s orders, but in some cases, it is simply to prompt a person onto compliance with the order in a very straightforward way.
Cleansing oneself of a crime is the other definition of "purge." This, however, is not a concern with family law and domestic relations cases; instead, this is a legal term of art that applies in cases where a person has been convicted of a crime and then has participated in whatever actions are necessary to "purge" his or her record of that crime. While this has no application in family law, it is a legal term nonetheless, and the word, "purge," can be used somewhat of an umbrella term when simply used generically in a family law case.
Common Situations Where a Purge Might Be Ordered
While the definition of purge is straightforward, how the term is applied in litigation can vary. Here are a few common scenarios where you might see the term purge used in a lawsuit. A common area for the term purge is in a motion for contempt of court. If you violate a lawful court order, the court may hold you in contempt and order you to purge yourself of the contempt. For example, the court may order that you file to be in compliance with the original court order, or that you pay court-ordered support. Another example is when you are seeking to expunge a criminal record in Texas. According to Texas Penal Code Section 55.01, if your criminal record is eligible for expunction, then you can have all records relating to the arrest and all filings and orders pertaining to the expunction issue are expunged. Another way to look at expunction is the act of purging or removing an arrest from the state’s records. Once you obtain a court order for expungement, then you can take that order to the arresting authority and request that they purge the arrest from their system. If the arresting authority fails to comply with the order, then you may seek to have them held in contempt of court for the failure to purge the arrest. A third scenario you might see is purging when a child has been removed from the home. A parent may have his or her rights terminated on their parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161. The court will set a hearing for a date subsequent to the termination hearing so that the parent has an opportunity to purge themselves of the grounds for the order.
Legal Consequences of a Court Ordered Purge
When the purge has been completed, the case is said to be purged and is then returned to the regular court docket for a hearing. The legal consequences or benefits of a purge depend on the context and the mechanism used to effectuate the purge. For example, in certain cases where a criminal defendant has served a certain amount of time, without incident, he may be released from incarceration, and his bond may be exonerated thus purging the case of an arrest. In civil cases, a person complying with a court order requiring payment of a debt, or other money judgment may have their "contempt" lifted, satisfying the contempt judgment upon compliance with the purge conditions of the court order. A draft order of purge is drafted by either counsel or the pro se petitioner and must be filed with the appropriate clerk of court to effectuate purging of a contempt judgment. After the purge order has been drafted and presented to the court, the purge conditions must be satisfied, to lift the contempt judgment.
How a Purge Process Works in Court
In order to purge a case or record in court, certain steps must be taken. First, the individual or entity wishing to have the case purged must file a motion with the court. This motion should state the grounds upon which the defendant is seeking the purge. This includes details giving the individual’s or entity’s reasons for purge, such as full payment of case costs or probation completion. The filer will then pay an evaluation fee to the court, which includes an examination of the records by the court to determine whether the motion should be granted. The filer then must appear before the court and present any necessary cases, plus supporting evidence, in order to convince the court to grant the motion and allow the record or case to be "purged." Once the court has approved the purge, the clerk of court takes the necessary steps to remove the record. If the motion is denied, the filer may file an appeal with a higher court.
Court Cases Implicating Child Support Payments to be Purged
The law of purge is not a new development of the Second Circuit, but has been evolving since 1938. Over the years there have been several notable cases that have clarified what exactly it means to "purge" yourself of contempt. This caveat will breakdown some of the more commonly cited cases involving purges, as well as discuss how they have shaped the modern definition. Following several case descriptions, a discussion of the general themes and rules surrounding purges are additionally explained. These examples will address both the criminal contempt standard, as well as civil contempt. Several Supreme Court cases dating from the late 19th century to the early 1940’s have dealt with contempt. In Ex parte Clarke, 100 U.S. 399 (1879), John S. and Daniel Clarke obtained a judgment in a Supreme Court in Mississippi for $72,109.80 against the plaintiff who was an individual living in New Orleans. The plaintiff did not attend the Mississippi trial or appear to defend himself. To ensure that he did not hide or dispose of assets located in Louisiana, the Clarke’s obtained a writ of sequestration from Louisiana state court. John L. Red River Bank then levied against certain property of the defendant in Louisiana. Defendant was found in contempt of court for failing to turn over the property and "withdrawing and concealing" the assets which had been levied by the bank. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the contempt order. The Court found that in order to find a party guilty of contempt, the court must direct it unambiguously. In a similar 1909 case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a party cannot be found guilty of contempt for an alleged violation of a preliminary injunction "unless the party seeking to hold them in contempt has clearly established by facts or conduct directly and specifically adverted to in the [injunctive order], the exact conduct alleged to be contemptuous of the injunction." Morton v. Morton, 175 F. 616 (1909). The 1959 case of Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S . 421 (1966) discussed the difference between civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is coercive and meant to compel compliance with a court order; whereas criminal contempt is punitive and punishes past offenses. The recidivism rate is less important in a civil contempt case, and the party being held in civil contempt must convince the court of their ‘purge’ or be released. In criminal contempt cases, recidivism is more important as the contempt order serves only to punish past offenses, without serving to correct future disobedience. The party cannot will themselves out of a criminal contempt. In the 1941 case of United States v. Shipp, the Sixth Circuit examined the meaning of purge. 208 F.2d 587 (6th Cir. 1953). A lawyer in Michigan took a bottle of whiskey without buying it and was found guilty of larceny. He was sentenced to a penitentiary instead of jail and lodged a motion to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus. The defendant contended that he could purge himself of the contempt by merely paying the fine, which he did. The Court ultimately found the defendant in contempt and ordered him back to jail because the lawyer "had not cleansed his speech from the error committed; to him the criminal act is still subject matter of penance; the inefficacy of his penitence would be more manifest if the decree is granted." The 2004 case of In re Brown, 2004 WL 445053 (Bankr. E.D. Mo., Feb, 3, 2004) discussed the issue of whether attorney fees should be awarded after the party was found in contempt during a Section 363 asset sale. The court found that counsel for the trustee was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services they performed in making the Contempt Motion despite her disobedience of the Court’s orders. Bankruptcy courts take into consideration whether the losing party made a good faith effort to comply with the Court’s orders, and will not award attorney’s fees if they find the party acted in good faith. The Court in In re Brown ultimately worked as a penalty for the party not acting in good faith and disobeying the Court’s orders.
Purge: How it Affects Individuals
The personal impact of a purge can be serious, both for defendants in criminal matters and other individuals who are involved in case law. For defendants, the emotional toll of a mounting pile of arrest warrants can be high. Whether those warrants represent payment in lieu of jail time or pre-existing cases that have taken on a life of their own, many defendants face mental problems as the result of the stress of knowing that they have a very real warrant for their arrest – and it is only a matter of time until they are apprehended.
For defendants, financial impact can also derail their lives. If a defendant has incurred several arrest warrants, his or her lawyer will be expected to be paid to handle each of those bonds. If the defendant has been arrested at least once, he or she has likely already paid hefty sums for hotel vouchers and bail.
If a defendant lives paycheck to pay period, without any savings, that defendant could come close to being financially strapped should they face multiple arrest warrants in a short period of time.
For any person involved in a case that has seen purging, the social stigma related to arrest warrants is virtually inevitable. Friends, family, coworkers, church members, neighbors, and social contacts may all find out that a person in their lives is facing an arrest warrant, even if that person is innocent of any crime.
This impact will vary in severity from person to person, but the knowledge that a loved one has two, three, or even several outstanding warrants can cause damage to the social fabric of a family.
What You Should Know About Legal Advice and a Purge
While we have written about purging in the past, this is another area where the nuances and details make it a good idea to consult with an attorney about how best to proceed. Different judges have different practices, and there are often minor details that matter which change from court to court and case to case.
For example, if there is an order scheduling a purge hearing and you were not served a copy, it might be OK to ask the court to reschedule that hearing. Or , it might be necessary for you to appear at the hearing and explain why there was not service. But, either way, it would likely be appropriate to speak with an attorney to help you craft the right argument.
These issues are rarely simple, and almost never follow any uniform procedure. You should look for legal assistance from a firm that specializes in litigation and has experience dealing with various forms of purging motions.