Liu v. Mund

Filing 165

ORDER denying 161 Motion for Finding of Contempt. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/16/2014. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WENFANG LIU,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
09-cv-500-wmc
v.
TIMOTHY MUND,
Defendant.

On October 2, 2012, this court entered an amended judgment in favor of the
plaintiff Wenfang Liu in the amount of $49,290.32, and ordered the defendant Timothy
Mund to make payments as directed. In particular, the court ordered defendant to make
monthly or bi-weekly payments to plaintiff of “125% of the federal poverty line, adjusted
annually as shown at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml, until his payment
obligations cease.”
Plaintiff has filed a motion for contempt, noting that the payments she has
received in 2014 of $1,198 per month are less than 125% of the federal poverty guideline
as adjusted for 2014. Under the adjusted guideline, plaintiff should be receiving $1,216
per month or $14,588 annually for a one person family. Plaintiff seeks a court order
directing Mund to pay the adjusted amount in one monthly payment either by check or
transferred directly to her bank account.

She also seeks compensatory and punitive

damages.
1

In response to the motion, defendant reports that he has sent a check to
compensate plaintiff for the shortfall and that all future monthly payments will be for the
adjusted amount. (Dkt. # 164). Because defendant has demonstrated his compliance
with the judgment, plaintiff’s motion for contempt and her request for damages (dkt. #
163) will be denied.

Defendant is nevertheless admonished to check the newly-set

federal poverty guideline at the beginning of each calendar year to assure that he remains
in compliance. Further failure to comply timely, particularly after having received notice
of the shortfall, may result in sanctions in the future.
In his response, defendant appears to argue that his financial obligation to
plaintiff should be reduced to account for a pension that she receives from a previous
employer, something he claims she has not previously disclosed. If defendant seeks relief
from the judgment, he must file a formal motion asking for such relief, along with any
evidence showing that he is entitled to reduce the amount of his monthly payments.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Wenfang Liu’s motion for contempt (dkt. # 163) is
DENIED.

Entered this 16th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
___________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
2