This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ds own a home with seven bedrooms, nine bathrooms, and 14,000 square feet of space. Ds advertised the home for short-term rentals on websites such as HomeAway and VRBO. Ds rented the home to persons hosting special events with large numbers of guests, such as weddings and family reunions. Ds' neighbors frequently complained about large numbers of people on the property and on the roads leading to and from the property. Town’s (P) zoning ordinance allows property owners to rent out their property only if they apply for and obtain a permit. Ds have never obtained a permit. P sent a cease-and-desist letter, which was sent by certified mail. D responded with a letter stating that the property had been rented out to KEASons Enterprises L.L.C. for the entire 2018 calendar year, that P should direct future correspondence to that company, and that the company was informing P that it should not trespass on the property. P commenced this action against Ds, and KEASons Enterprises L.L.C., seeking an order enjoining the Ps and damages. P moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to compel D to remove all advertisements for the property and cancel all existing rental agreements and to restrain them from renting out the property. The district court granted the motion on an ex parte basis. The court scheduled a hearing on P's request for a temporary injunction. Ds did not attend that hearing. The district court issued a temporary injunction. P moved to find Ds in 'civil and criminal' contempt of court for violating the TRO and temporary injunction by renting out their home on six occasions. Ds answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims and moved for summary judgment and to dissolve the temporary injunction. The district court conducted a court trial on the merits. The court filed a 49-page order in which it found that the Ds had violated the township's zoning ordinances and concluded that the township was entitled to declaratory relief and a permanent injunction. The court enjoined Ds from 'renting/leasing the property'; required the Ds to 'immediately and permanently remove all listings and/or advertisements that the property . . . is for rent or lease from all rental websites, including but not limited to HomeAway, VRBO, AirBNB etc.'; and 'restrained Ds from creating new listings to rent/lease the property.' The court also granted P's contempt motion and found Ds in civil contempt for violating the TRO and the temporary injunction. The district court required Ds to certify their compliance with the district court's post-trial order by, within ten days, submitting a sworn statement that they had removed all advertisements for rentals of their home. If they failed to submit the certification, they would be required to pay $118,890 to P within 11 days of the post-trial order. The court awarded the township attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 588.11 of the Minnesota Statutes in the amount of $35,386. Ds appealed from the district court's order. The appeals court rejected Ds' argument. The Auleciemses did not challenge the district court's finding of civil contempt. Ds timely filed a sworn statement that they had complied with the district court's permanent injunction by removing all advertisements for rentals of their home. P received additional reports of weekend rentals. The district court conducted the show-cause hearing. The evidence showed that Ds had rented out their home for weddings on numerous occasions since the May 2019 trial. D testified that he had 'shared' the home with guests, in exchange for compensation, while he or another resident remained on the property. The court found Ds in civil contempt of court. The court ordered Ds to pay a fine of $81,870. It ordered Ds to pay the township's costs and attorney fees related to the second show-cause order and gave the township 14 days to submit evidence of the amount of its costs and fees. The ordered Ds to serve a jail term of 180 days, unless they fully paid the $81,870 fine, the township's attorney fees and costs related to the second show-cause order, and the previously ordered $118,890 fine. Ds appealed. Ds contend that '[c]ivil contempt proceedings are designed to induce future performance of a valid court order, not to punish for past failure to perform.' They contend that a district court may not 'punish past nonperformance in a civil contempt proceeding.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.