In re Moroun

¶1(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

¶2I

¶3I agree that this Court has jurisdiction of the claim of appeal filed in this action by appellants Manuel J. Moroun and Dan Stamper for the reason that, as they are nonparties to the underlying action by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) against the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC), the order that punished Moroun and Stamper for the civil contempt of DIBC is a final order appealable by right. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i); US Catholic Conference v Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc, 487 US 72, 76; 108 S Ct 2268; 101 L Ed 2d 69 (1988).

¶4ii

¶5Additionally, I agree that the trial court’s January 12, 2012, order did not specify with particularity what action or actions Stamper and Moroun were required to take so that they were able to immediately purge themselves of the contempt finding made by the trial court against DIBC. First, no contempt finding was made against Moroun and Stamper. Only DIBC was found in contempt. Thus, any act to be performed by Moroun and Stamper was not to purge themselves of contempt for some unstated act in defiance of the trial court’s order, but instead was to purge DIBC of contempt. Second, there is considerable ambiguity with regard to what the trial court intended by requiring Moroun and Stamper to remain imprisoned until DIBC had “fully complied” with the trial court’s February 1,2010, order. In this regard, counsel for MDOT acknowledged during oral argument before this Court that it was unclear precisely what particular actions by Moroun and Stamper would satisfy the trial court’s *343directive that DIBC fully comply with the February 1, 2010, order. Moreover, the trial court had appointed a monitor to oversee and report on the project’s progress and had also ordered DIBC to file biweekly progress reports. But, as also acknowledged by counsel for MDOT, it is unclear to what extent the trial court’s review of the reports would affect its determination whether DIBC had sufficiently complied with the February 1, 2010, order, so that Moroun and Stamper could be determined to have done enough to have purged DIBC of contempt.1 For these reasons, I agree that the commitment directive did not enable appellants “to purge the contempt and obtain [their] release by committing an affirmative act,” or in other words, appellants did not carry “the keys of [their] prison in [their] own pocket[s].”2Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v Bagwell, 512 US 821, 828; 114 S Ct 2552; 129 L Ed 2d 642 (1994) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

¶6hi

¶7I disagree, however, with the conclusion in the lead opinion that there was sufficient notice to Moroun and Stamper.

¶8*344a

¶9There is no question that officers and agents of a corporation are bound to follow orders that are directed toward the corporation, even if those officers and agents are not named in the order itself. See In re Kennison Sales & Engineering Co, 363 Mich 612, 618; 110 NW2d 579 (1961); Ex parte Chambers, 898 SW2d 257, 260 (Tex, 1995). Thus, Stamper as president of DIBC and Moroun as a director of DIBC were bound by the orders of the trial court directing certain action by DIBC, and they were required to avoid conduct that contributed to or caused DIBC to violate the trial court’s February 1, 2010, order. From the fact that the trial court ordered them incarcerated, it is clear that the trial court concluded that Moroun and Stamper did or failed to do something that contributed to or caused the contumacious conduct of DIBC.3 However, the June 9, 2011, ex parte motion filed by MDOT, the trial court’s June 13, 2011, order to show cause, and the show-cause proceedings commenced on July 7, 2011, did not identify what conduct of Moroun and Stamper contributed to or caused DIBC to be in contempt of the trial court’s February 1, 2010, order. In addition, the show-cause order did not make Moroun and Stamper parties to the contumacious conduct of DIBC. I would conclude that these are due-process errors that require the trial court’s sanctions against Moroun and Stamper to be vacated.

¶10*345B

¶111

¶12In a civil contempt proceeding, “rudimentary” due process is required. Porter v Porter, 285 Mich App 450, 456-457; 776 NW2d 377 (2009). Specifically, this requires “notice and an opportunity to present a defense, and the party seeking enforcement of the court’s order bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the order was violated.” Id. at 457.

¶13MCL 600.1711(2), addressing indirect contempt, provides that “[w]hen any contempt is committed other than in the immediate view and presence of the court, the court may punish it by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other method and opportunity has been given to defend.”

¶14MCR 3.606(A)(1), also governing contempt outside of the immediate presence of the court, provides in part that the court shall “order the accused person to show cause, at a reasonable time specified in the order, why that person should not be punished for the alleged misconduct.” (Emphasis added.)

¶15Accordingly,

[i]f the contemptuous behavior occurs in front of the court, i.e., it is “direct” contempt, there is no need for a separate hearing before the court imposes any proper sanctions because “all facts necessary to a finding of contempt are within the personal knowledge of the judge.” If the contemptuous conduct occurs outside the court’s direct view, i.e., it is “indirect” contempt, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged contemnor actually committed contempt. This hearing must follow the procedures established in MCR 3.606 and afford some measure of due process before the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence of contempt to warrant sanctions. [In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 243 Mich App 697, 712-713; 624 NW2d 443 (2000) (citations omitted).]

¶16*3462

¶17This Court interprets court rules according to the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes. Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70; 803 NW2d 271 (2011). “Our goal when interpreting and applying statutes or court rules is to give effect to the plain meaning of the text. If the text is unambiguous, we apply the language as written without construction or interpretation.” Id.Moreover, if there is any conflict between the requirements of MCL 600.1711(2) and MCR 3.606, the court rule prevails. In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 667; 765 NW2d 44 (2009). A trial court’s substantial compliance with MCR 3.606(A)(1) is sufficient. See People v Saffold, 465 Mich 268, 273; 631 NW2d 320 (2001).

¶18c

¶19The plain and unambiguous language of MCR 3.606(A)(1) requires that, on a proper showing on an ex parte motion supported by affidavits, the accused person should be ordered to show cause why that person should not be punished for the alleged contempt. In this case, the ex parte motion, without referring to anyone in particular, asserted that “DIBC” did certain acts or failed to perform certain acts. Also, the June 13, 2011, order to show cause stated the following:

To: Dan Stamper, Fresident

Detroit International Bridge Company

YOU ARE ORDERED to personally appear before this Court... on Thursday, July 7, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. and show cause why the Detroit International Bridge Company should not be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with the terms and provisions of this Court’s February 1, 2010 Opinion and Order. [Emphasis added.]

¶20*347The show-cause order and the averments in the ex parte affidavit were insufficient to comply or substantially comply with the requirement that Moroun and Stamper be given notice that they personally could be punished because the documents pertained to DIBC’s compliance with the trial court’s February 1, 2010, order. Moroun’s and Stamper’s conduct was not mentioned in the ex parte affidavit or at the June 9, 2011, hearing pertaining to the ex parte affidavit. In addition, Moroun was not mentioned whatsoever in the show-cause order, and Stamper’s identification in the order only directed him to show cause concerning DIBC’s conduct. Moreover, when the show-cause proceedings commenced on July 7, 2011, the trial court did not advise Stamper that his personal conduct could be considered contumacious and was a subject of the show-cause hearings, and no statement was made on the record during the show-cause proceedings that Moroun’s conduct was the subject of the hearings.4

¶21*348While these facts are not in dispute, the lead opinion overlooks these procedural defects by appearing to conclude that, because of Stamper’s and Moroun’s status as “key decision-makers,” i.e., fiduciaries of DIBC, notice that their personal conduct and personal liberty were the subject of the show-cause hearing was obviously implied. But MCR 3.606(A)(1) does not permit constructive notice of the nature of the contempt proceedings and the alleged contumacious conduct — it requires actual notice. In my judgment, the lead opinion’s interpretation of MCR 3.606(A)(1) as allowing such constructive notice runs afoul of the plain meaning of the court rule. See Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 758-759; 641 NW2d 567 (2002).

¶22Although there is no precedent directly on point in Michigan, the rationale for interpreting MCR 3.606(A)(1) as requiring all persons subject to a show-cause order, including corporate officers and directors, to be personally notified that they could be subject to punishment for contemptuous conduct is supported by caselaw from other jurisdictions that have addressed this very question. The principle that these other jurisdictions espouse can be summed up as follows: “ ‘An officer of a corporation who participates in the disobedience of a court mandate is punishable for contempt provided he has been made a party to the contumacious conduct and due notice has been given to him.’’ ” In re Snider Farms, Inc, 125 BR 993, 999 (Bankr ND Ind, 1991), quoting 17 Am Jur 2d, Contempt, § 61 (emphasis added); see also Spuncraft, Inc v Lori Jay Mfg Co, 47 Misc 2d 780, 781; 263 NYS2d 211 (NY Sup Ct, 1965).

¶23In Dole Fresh Fruit Co v United Banana Co, Inc, 821 *349F2d 106 (CA 2, 1987), the district court found three officers of the corporate defendant in civil contempt. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that even though the individuals were within the scope of the underlying order, it was improper to hold the individuals in contempt when it appeared that only the corporate defendant was a party to the contempt proceedings. Id. at 110. The court stressed that the three individuals did not know that they were “personally” going to be held in contempt. Id. This factual situation is nearly identical with the situation in the present case, in which both Stamper and Moroun were never notified that they could be individually punished.5

¶24Although the lead opinion does not agree, I would find that Auto Club, 243 Mich App 697, does support these principles. In that case, this Court reversed the trial court’s finding of contempt against the defendant corporation because the corporation was not afforded notice. Id. at 718. The plaintiff instituted contempt proceedings against defense counsel personally, not the defendant corporation. Id. at 717. But at the conclusion of the show-cause hearing, the trial court found both the attorney and the corporation in contempt. Id.Thus, this Court concluded that the corporation was “denied *350its right to know the substance of the charges against it.” Id.This Court further noted:

The contempt hearing also failed to give [the defendant corporation] notice that it was being charged with contempt because the trial court’s order appeared to concern [the defense] attorneys as individuals. The first time it became clear that the trial court intended to hold [the corporation] in contempt was in [its] order, after the tried court had already done so. This completely denied [the corporation] an opportunity to prepare or present a defense. [Id. (emphasis added).]

¶25Just as the defendant in Auto Clubwas deprived of notice because it was never notified that it could be punished for contempt, the same can be said here of Moroun and Stamper.

¶26D

¶27In summary, I would hold that the unambiguous plain language and meaning of MCR 3.606(A)(1) require that regardless of a person’s status as a corporate officer or director of a corporation subject to a show-cause order, that officer or director is entitled to direct rather than implied notice to appear to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt or punished for specified contumacious conduct. Because such notice was not provided in the instant case, I would conclude that the contempt proceedings as they pertain to Moroun and Stamper were fatally flawed as violative of due process of law, and I would vacate the contempt sanctions imposed against them.

¶28IV

¶29Finally, I also dissent from the panel’s decision to give this Court’s judgment immediate effect pursuant to MCR 7.215(F)(2). The panel has issued three au*351thored opinions concerning the necessary due process of law to be accorded to corporate officials in a show-cause proceeding against a corporation. This issue has not been directly addressed by any Michigan precedent. Under these circumstances, I believe that exceptional issuance of our judgment is uhwarranted.

¶41(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I join in and concur with the lead opinion in all respects except concerning the imprisonment sanction.1 Because I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with regard to the propriety of the penalty for civil contempt, I would affirm the lower court’s decision in its entirety.

¶42Individuals who conspire with others to violate court orders are equally liable and subject to contempt proceedings. ARA Chuckwagon of Detroit, Inc v Lobert, 69 Mich App 151, 159; 244 NW2d 393 (1976). When an order is entered by the court, it must be obeyed until it is judicially vacated. Id. at 161. The validity of the order is determined by the courts, not the parties. Id.“Our jurisprudence has long recognized the inherent power of a court of record to punish, by contempt citation, a party for wilful, continuous, and contemptuous disobedience of its orders.” Id. at 162-163.

¶43The circuit court has the authority to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, any neglect, violation of duty, or misconduct by “[pjarties to actions, attorneys, counselors, and all other persons for disobeying any lawful order, decree, or process of the court.” MCL *352600.1701(g). Contempt committed outside the immediate view and presence of the court may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other means and an opportunity to defend has been given. MCL 600.1711(2). MCL 600.17152 addresses the punishment of contempt:

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, punishment for contempt may be a fine of not more than $7,500.00, or imprisonment which, except in those cases where the commitment is for the omission to perform an act or duty which is still within the power of the person to perform shall not exceed 93 days, or both, in the discretion of the court.. ..

(2) If the contempt consists of the omission to perform some act or duty that is still within the power of the person to perform, the imprisonment shall be terminated when the person performs the act or duty or no longer has the power to perform the act or duty, which shall be specified in the order of commitment, and pays the fine, costs, and expenses of the proceedings, which shall be specified in the order of commitment.

¶44“The issuance of an order of contempt rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.” In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 671; 765 NW2d 44 (2009). “We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to hold a party or individual in contempt.” In re Contempt of *353Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 99; 667 NW2d 68 (2003). The trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and questions of law are reviewed de novo. Porter v Porter, 285 Mich App 450, 454-455; 776 NW2d 377 (2009). “Clear error exists when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Henry, 282 Mich App at 669. “The abuse of discretion standard recognizes that there will be circumstances where there is no single correct outcome and which require us to defer to the trial court’s judgment; reversal is warranted only when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of principled outcomes.” Porter, 285 Mich App at 455.

¶45“The power to hold a party, attorney, or other person in contempt is the ultimate sanction the trial court has within its arsenal, allowing it to punish past transgressions, compel future adherence to the rules of engagement, i.e., the court rules and court orders, or compensate the complainant.” In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 243 Mich App 697, 708; 624 NW2d 443 (2000).

[W]e define [] contempt of court as a willful act, omission, or statement that tends to ... impede the functioning of a court. ... [T]he primary purpose of the contempt power is to preserve the effectiveness and sustain the power of the courts. Because the power to hold a party in contempt is so great, it carries with it the equally great responsibility to apply it judiciously and only when the contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown. [Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).]

¶46“Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor’s compliance or inability to comply.” DeGeorge v Warheit, 276 Mich App 587, 592; 741 NW2d 384 (2007). Criminal contempt, however, is designed to punish past disobedient conduct by imposing an unconditional and definite sentence. Id.Al*354though civil contempt is primarily coercive in nature to compel compliance by the contemnor, the civil sanction may also have a punitive effect. Id.Confinement or imprisonment may be imposed whether the contempt is civil or criminal in nature. Borden v Borden, 67 Mich App 45, 48; 239 NW2d 757 (1976).

Civil contempt imposes a term of imprisonment which ceases when defendant complies with the court’s order or when it is no longer within his power to comply. Civil contempt seeks to coerce compliance, to coerce the defendant to do what he is able to do but refuses to do. The defendant carries the keys to his prison in his own pocket. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, imposes a definite term of imprisonment as punishment for a past offense. [Id.]

¶47Contempts are not necessarily wholly civil or altogether criminal because it is not always easy to classify a particular act as belonging to either class. Gompers v Buck’s Stove & Range Co, 221 US 418, 441; 31 S Ct 492; 55 L Ed 797 (1911). The GompersCourt offered the following test to determine the character of the punishment and held that any indirect overlapping consequences did not alter the nature of the contempt:

It is not the fact of punishment but rather its character and purpose that often serve to distinguish between the two classes of cases. If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court. It is true that punishment by imprisonment may be remedial, as well as punitive, and many civil contempt proceedings have resulted not only in the imposition of a fine, payable to the complainant, but also in committing the defendant to prison. But imprisonment for civil contempt is ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by the provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, was mandatory in its character. Imprison*355ment in such cases is not inflicted as a punishment, but is intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do. The decree in such cases is that the defendant stand committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court’s order.

It is true that either form of imprisonment has also an incidental effect. For if the case is civil and the punishment is purely remedial, there is also a vindication of the court’s authority. On the other hand, if the proceeding is for criminal contempt and the imprisonment is solely punitive, to vindicate the authority of the law, the complainant may also derive some incidental benefit from the fact that such punishment tends to prevent a repetition of the disobedience. But such indirect consequences will not change imprisonment which is merely coercive and remedial, into that which is solely punitive in character, or vice versa. [Id. at 441-443.]

¶48Similarly, Michigan law provides that when conditional and coercive confinement is imposed, the contempt proceeding is civil. Borden, 67 Mich App at 49. Michigan statutes also hold that a “commitment to coerce performance may properly continue so long as it is within the power of the contemnor to comply with the court order.” Id.; see also MCL 600.1715.

¶49Furthermore, Michigan law recognizes two types of civil contempt sanctions, coercive and compensatory. In re Contempt of Rochlin, 186 Mich App 639, 646; 465 NW2d 388 (1990). In United States v United Mine Workers of America, 330 US 258, 304; 67 S Ct 677; 91 L Ed 884 (1947), the United States Supreme Court explained the underlying rationale behind the two types of civil contempt sanctions:

Where compensation is intended, a fine is imposed, payable to the complainant. Such fine must of course be *356based upon evidence of complainant’s actual loss, and his right, as a civil litigant, to the compensatory fine is dependent on the outcome of the basic controversy.

But where the purpose is to make the defendant comply, the court’s discretion is otherwise exercised. It must then consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by the continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired. [Citations omitted.]

¶50The longstanding rule is that “a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become a retrial of the original controversy.” United States v Rylander, 460 US 752, 756; 103 S Ct 1548; 75 L Ed 2d 521 (1983) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Because civil contempt sanctions are viewed as nonpunitive and avoidable, fewer procedural protections for such sanctions have been required.” Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v Bagwell, 512 US 821, 831; 114 S Ct 2552; 129 L Ed 2d 642 (1994). Consequently, civil contempt “may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.” Id. at 827. Due process does not require a full-blown evidentiary hearing, and contempt sanctions may even be imposed on the basis of uncontroverted affidavits. United States v Ayres, 166 F3d 991, 995 (CA 9, 1999); see also MCL 600.1711(2).

The paradigmatic coercive, civil contempt sanction ... involves confining a contemnor indefinitely until he complies with an affirmative command such as an order to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance. Imprisonment for a fixed term similarly is coercive when the contemnor is given the option of earlier release if he complies. In these circumstances, the contemnor is able to purge the contempt and obtain his release by committing an affirmative *357act, and thus carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket. [Bagwell, 512 US at 828 (quotation marks and citations omitted).]

¶51When civil contempt occurs, the trial court has inherent and statutory authority to order conditional imprisonment. Harvey v Lewis, 10 Mich App 709, 717; 160 NW2d 391 (1968). “Theoretically, imprisonment for civil contempt might be forever so long as it is within the contemnor’s power to comply with the court order he refuses to carry out[.]” Id.(emphasis added). The determination regarding the propriety of contempt is contingent on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. See Spallone v United States, 493 US 265, 267, 279-280; 110 S Ct 625; 107 L Ed 2d 644 (1990); In re Simmons, 248 Mich 297, 305-306; 226 NW 907 (1929); Stowe v Wolverine Metal Specialties Co, 242 Mich 624, 630; 219 NW 714 (1928); Wells v Wells, 144 Mich App 722, 732; 375 NW2d 800 (1985). When selecting the appropriate contempt sanction, the court must use the least possible power necessary to achieve the proposed end. Spallone, 493 US at 276. However, if the least possible contempt sanction approach fails to produce compliance within a reasonable period of time, additional sanctions may be imposed. Id. at 280.

¶52Because the objective of civil contempt is to enforce compliance with the court’s order rather than punishment for a refusal to obey, one held in and incarcerated for civil contempt may not be incarcerated beyond the time that he or she is able to comply with the court’s order. Spalter v Wayne Circuit Judge, 35 Mich App 156, 161; 192 NW2d 347 (1971). “The contemnor must have the ability to comply with the court’s order and the possibility of terminating his or her confinement and purging himself of contempt by complying.” Borden, 67 Mich App at 49. “Promised future compliance with *358prior judicial orders is a common and appropriate method of purging contempt. Since future compliance is the court’s objective in civil contempt proceedings, an assurance of such compliance by one deemed worthy of belief is a sensible basis for terminating coercive sanctions.” Williams Int’l Corp v Smith, 144 Mich App 257, 266; 375 NW2d 408 (1985) (citations omitted), rev’d on other grounds 429 Mich 81 (1987). The court is vested with broad discretion to determine the appropriate conditions through which the contemnor may purge the contempt. Midlarsky v D’Urso, 133 AD2d 616; 519 NYS2d 724 (1987). The appellate court reviews the denial of a motion to purge a contempt order for an abuse of discretion. Consol Rail Corp v Yashinsky, 170 F3d 591, 594 (CA 6, 1999).

¶53Appellants contend that because the completion of the project will take approximately 9 to 12 months, they do not have the ability to “immediately” purge the contempt and, therefore, do not have the keys to their jail cell. Appellants further contend that the trial court was obligated to impose the least restrictive sanction to compel compliance. Curiously, appellants fail to identify the least restrictive sanction or impetus that would prompt them into action on behalf of DIBC.3

¶54As indicated, the propriety of the contempt sanction is contingent on the facts and circumstances in each individual case, and although the least restrictive sanction should be imposed, a graduated penalty is appro*359priate when necessary. See Spallone, 493 US at 276, 280; Wells, 144 Mich App at 732. The trial court is granted the broad discretion to determine the appropriate conditions through which the contemnor may purge the contempt. Midlarsky, 133 AD2d at 617. Pursuant to Michigan caselaw, full compliance with the contempt order is not necessarily required; rather, a promise of future compliance or a good-faith attempt may be sufficient to purge the contempt. Williams Int’l Corp, 144 Mich App at 266.

¶55In the present case, the facts and circumstances justified the order of confinement pending completion of the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project. The extensive and lengthy record demonstrates that the trial court ordered completion of the project. Rather than comply with the trial court’s order, DIBC filed multiple claims of appeal, and the case was removed to federal court on two occasions. DIBC did not obtain any relief from the trial court’s order,4 but nonetheless failed to comply with that order. Unable to obtain compliance, the trial court held a contempt hearing during which Stamper testified. The trial court determined that civil coercive sanctions were necessary to ensure compliance, and Stamper, as president of DIBC, was ordered imprisoned but was released within a short time when DIBC restarted work on the project. However, since then, DIBC has not complied with the trial court’s order. This order has not been declared invalid, and, consequently, the trial court has inherent contempt power to punish the willful, continuous, and contemptuous disobedience of the order. ARA Chuckwagon, 69 *360Mich App at 162-163. Although the court has the obligation to consider the least restrictive penalty, in the present case, the court graduated its punishment in light of the history of delay and noncompliance. Under the circumstances, I cannot conclude that ordering the contempt sanction until completion of the project constituted an abuse of discretion.

¶56Furthermore, the contention that appellants are without the means or the knowledge to immediately purge the contempt is without merit. The design of coercive civil contempt sanctions is to achieve compliance, to force the contemnor to do what he or she refuses to do. Borden, 67 Mich App at 48. “Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor’s compliance or inability to comply.” DeGeorge, 276 Mich App at 592 (emphasis added). “The power to hold a party, attorney, or other person in contempt is the ultimate sanction the trial court has within its arsenal, allowing it to punish past transgressions, compel future adherence to the rules of engagement, i.e., the court rules and court orders, or compensate the complainant.” Auto Club, 243 Mich App at 708. DIBC’s conduct rose to the height of contempt. According to the factual findings of the trial court, it not only failed to comply with the trial court’s order, but engaged in a process designed to render the project stagnant. This comes at a great cost to MDOT as well as the local community where the construction commenced, and the trial court must be entitled to use the ultimate sanction within its arsenal. Id. However, appellants have the right to move the trial court to purge the contempt, Spalter, 35 Mich App at 166, and can be released before the full completion by promises of future compliance or good faith efforts, Williams Int’l Corp, 144 Mich App at 266. In light of the fact that *361appellants can purge the contempt before the full completion of the project, I cannot conclude that the trial court’s decision regarding the imprisonment constituted an abuse of discretion.

¶57I would affirm the lower court’s order in its entirety.