Rule 19.030.Allowing Remedial Sanctions
Current through August 1, 2026 · Last verified September 12, 2026
Full Text of Rule 19.030
Plain-English Summary
A contempt proceeding can be filed for punitive sanctions and still end with a remedial one. This rule answers the question that follows. Whatever rules apply to allowing remedial sanctions in a proceeding brought only for remedial sanctions under ORS 33.055 apply equally to allowing remedial sanctions inside a proceeding for punitive sanctions under ORS 33.065.
The reason the rule exists is the split created by UTCR 19.040. That rule routes remedial contempt proceedings to the civil rules and punitive contempt proceedings to the criminal rules. Without this provision, a remedial sanction awarded in a punitive case would be allowed under whichever track the caption happened to place it in. The rule follows the sanction rather than the caption.
Read the scope closely. It speaks of rules that apply to allowing remedial sanctions, which is the procedure for granting them, not a wholesale conversion of the proceeding. The case does not become a remedial proceeding because a remedial sanction is on the table.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court allow a remedial sanction in a punitive contempt case?
The rule is written on the assumption that it can, and it tells you which rules govern when that happens: the same ones that would apply to allowing a remedial sanction in a proceeding brought only for remedial sanctions under ORS 33.055.
Which rules apply to the remedial part of a punitive proceeding?
The rules that apply to allowing remedial sanctions in a remedial proceeding. In practice that means looking to the civil side of the split in UTCR 19.040 and to the exceptions in UTCR 19.050 for the allowance of the remedial sanction, rather than to the criminal rules that otherwise govern a punitive proceeding.
Does this turn a punitive case into a remedial case?
No. The rule addresses the allowance of remedial sanctions, not the character of the proceeding. The case keeps its footing under ORS 33.065, and UTCR 19.040 still routes the rest of it to the rules that govern criminal proceedings.
What is the difference between remedial and punitive contempt in these rules?
The chapter keys them to different statutes, remedial to ORS 33.055 and punitive to ORS 33.065, and then treats them differently. UTCR 19.040 sends each to a different body of procedure, and UTCR 19.020 presumes a punitive sanction to be greater than a remedial one when the court measures what was requested.
Must the initiating instrument say which kind of sanction I want?
Yes. UTCR 19.020 requires the instrument to state the maximum sanctions sought and, as to each, whether the party seeking it considers it remedial or punitive. That statement also fixes the ceiling, because the court cannot impose a sanction greater than the sanction sought.