Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Andrew M. Jacobs](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10802556/isom-v-isom/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Isom v. Isom

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-SA 26-0013

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Andrew M. Jacobs

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

JENELL ISOM, Petitioner,

v.

ANDREW ISOM, Respondent.

No. 1 CA-SA 26-0013
FILED 03-02-2026

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2022-001987
The Honorable Michelle Carson, Judge

JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED

COUNSEL

Al Arpad, Phoenix
By Alexander R. Arpad
Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew Isom, Peoria
Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.
ISOM v. ISOM
Decision of the Court

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Jenell Isom (“Wife”) petitions this court for relief from a
$5,000 contempt sanction against her for violating family court orders. She
cites Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 35.4(a), which bars
courts from fining people who were not found guilty of contempt by a jury
who have not waived their right to a jury trial more than $300. Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 35.4(a). Because Isom is right that Rule 35.4 bars the $5,000 fine,
and because she has no other appellate remedy, we exercise our
discretionary special action jurisdiction, vacate the $5,000 fine, and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Wife petitioned to dissolve her marriage to Andrew Isom
(“Husband”) in March 2022. Following Wife’s petition, the family court
issued a preliminary injunction, effective immediately until a dissolution
decree issued, barring Husband and Wife from selling or disposing of
community property without written permission from the other party or
the court. The injunction allowed that selling community property might
be permissible if needed to provide the “necessities of life.”

¶3 On January 6, 2025, the court entered a final dissolution
decree. In it, the court found Wife had taken from the marital residence
“[a]pproximately 22 Guns” that were community property, and that Wife
intentionally disobeyed a September 2022 court order to provide Husband
with the guns’ serial numbers so he could register them. The decree
ordered Wife to immediately return the guns to Husband.

¶4 After Wife failed to return them by July 1, 2025, Husband
petitioned to enforce their return in “any capacity the court feels
appropriate.” Husband later petitioned the court to hold Wife in contempt.
The court set a contempt hearing and ordered the parties to file pre-trial
statements, which focused on Wife’s refusal to return the guns.

¶5 Husband’s pre-trial statement asked the court to hold Wife in
“civil contempt” for refusing to return the guns and to impose monetary
sanctions to compel her future compliance with court orders. Wife’s pre-
trial statement notified Husband and the court for the first time that Wife
sold the guns “[o]n or about January 1 – 3, 2024” — while the injunction
was in effect, but before the decree issued — to her sister’s “now estranged”
boyfriend for $3,000 cash because she needed to make ends meet. Husband
responded that, even accepting Wife’s claims as true, the preliminary

2
ISOM v. ISOM
Decision of the Court

injunction prohibited her from selling the guns at the time she admitted
doing so.

¶6 At the hearing, the court suggested Wife did not take the
proceedings seriously, was in contempt of the decree, and that contempt
sanctions might alter her behavior. Husband argued Wife “unilaterally . . .
admitted to selling the [guns] in violation of the preliminary injunction.”
He asked the court to “find [Wife] in contempt and impose appropriate
sanctions to restore compliance and accountability.” Wife said she sold the
guns before the dissolution decree issued and that she believed the
preliminary injunction allowed her to sell the guns to get by because
Husband had not made court-ordered payments to her.

¶7 The court found Wife in contempt for violating its orders by
knowingly selling the guns. The court conferred with Husband about
“appropriate restitution” for the guns and settled on a $16,000 sanction
payable to him. The court then fined Wife an additional $5,000 for
disobeying its orders.

¶8 The court’s order after the hearing reiterated its findings and
sanctions. It found Wife “admits she sold the guns, in violation of the
preliminary injunction and final order,” specified the $16,000 was awarded
and payable to Husband, and “further . . . fin[ed] [Wife] $5,000.00 for
noncompliance.” The order allowed Wife “[t]o purge the finding of
contempt” by paying the $5,000 fine to the clerk of court.

¶9 Wife appealed the entirety of the civil contempt order, but
filed this special action, arguing that the family court framed the $5,000
contempt fine as civil, making that part of its civil contempt order non-
appealable.

DISCUSSION

I. We Exercise Our Discretionary Special Action Jurisdiction
Because the Contempt Sanction Is Criminal and Arises Under
A.R.S. § 12-864, Making It Unappealable.

¶10 Whether to exercise our special action jurisdiction is “highly
discretionary.” Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 507, 511 ¶ 9 (App.
2009). Here, we exercise our discretionary jurisdiction because the $5,000
fine is a type of criminal fine that is unappealable and would evade review
if we did not exercise our discretionary jurisdiction, see Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act.
12(b)(5), as we next explain in further detail.

3
ISOM v. ISOM
Decision of the Court

A. The Fine Was Criminal.

¶11 As an initial matter, the $5,000 contempt sanction was
criminal, not civil. “A contempt sanction is considered civil if it either
‘coerce[s] the defendant into compliance with the court’s order, [or] . . .
compensate[s] the complainant for losses sustained.” Trombi v. Donahoe,
223 Ariz. 261, 267 ¶ 26 (App. 2009) (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine Workers
of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829 (1994)).

¶12 This sanction did neither: it didn’t coerce Wife into returning
Husband’s guns, nor did it compensate Husband for his loss. The court
found Wife sold the firearms, so compliance was impossible. Nor did the
fine compensate Husband for his loss; the $16,000 award did that. Instead,
the fine operated simply to punish Wife and vindicate the court’s authority.
See id. (“[A] contempt sanction is considered criminal if it is imposed solely
to punish a past act and vindicate the authority of the court [] and cannot
be avoided through compliance.”).

¶13 Contrary to Husband’s contention, paying the fine would not
be a “purge” that would make the fine, if paid, civil. Purging is when you
“compl[y] with the court’s order” giving rise to the contempt. Korman v.
Strick, 133 Ariz. 471, 474 (1982). Again, Wife can’t return the guns she sold
in violation of court orders. Her inability to purge the contempt reinforces
that the fine is criminal.

B. The $5,000 Criminal Fine Is Unappealable.

¶14 The $5,000 fine is also unappealable, because it arose under
A.R.S. § 12-864. A court may find a party in criminal contempt, and
sanction that party monetarily, where the party’s contemptuous act “also
constitutes a criminal offense.” A.R.S. § 12-861. In those cases, the criminal
contemnor has a right to appeal. See A.R.S. § 12-863 (“An appeal may be
taken as in criminal cases.”).

¶15 But a criminal sanction imposed when the contemptuous act
does not also constitute a criminal offense, instead arises under A.R.S. § 12-
864 and is unappealable. Van Baalen v. Superior Court, 19 Ariz. App. 512,
513 (1973) (“Contempt orders or judgments under A.R.S. § 12-864, as
opposed to those arising under A.R.S. § 12-861, are not appealable, even
though they may theoretically be designated as ‘criminal contempts.’”);
Rogers v. Superior Court (In re Anonymous), 4 Ariz. App. 170, 171 (1966)
(concluding “appellant has no right [to] appeal” contempt order “classified
. . . as a criminal contempt within the purview of A.R.S. [§] 12-864, as

4
ISOM v. ISOM
Decision of the Court

distinguished from the criminal contempt referred to in A.R.S. [§§] 12-861
through 12-863.”).

¶16 Here, Husband never alleged, and the court never found, that
Mother’s contemptuous acts also constituted criminal offenses. Lacking
any such suggestion, the $5,000 fine was not only criminal, but was also not
appealable. Because Wife lacks a right to appeal the fine, it would evade
review unless we exercised our discretionary jurisdiction, as we do today.

II. Because Rule 35.4 Bars Fines Over $300 Without Process Not Yet
Provided, We Grant Relief.

¶17 Criminal contempt sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-864 may only
be imposed by providing the procedural protections in Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 35. See Riley v. Superior Court, 124 Ariz. 498, 499 (App.
1979) (“If a contempt is criminal, but not within the bounds of A.R.S. [§]
12-861, i.e., the contemptuous act is not a criminal offense by itself, the
provisions of [Rule 35] are applicable.”).

¶18 Rule 35.4 prohibits a court from “punish[ing] a person under
this rule . . . by a fine greater than $300 . . . unless the person either has been
found guilty of contempt by a jury or has waived the right to a jury trial.”
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 35.4(a). Wife was not found guilty of contempt by a jury,
and she has not waived her right to a jury trial. As such, the family court
was allowed to levy $300 of this fine, but not the remaining $4,700 of it.

CONCLUSION

¶19 Accordingly, we exercise our discretionary special action
jurisdiction, vacate the $5,000 fine, and remand for further proceedings.
Upon remand, the family court may fine Wife $300 without further process,
and may consider imposing further punishments for contempt that are
consistent with Rule 35.4 and this decision. In our discretion, we deny
Wife’s request for attorneys’ fees.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5