Scott and Jamie Korowotny appeal the trial court’s entry of a contempt order against them for violating their residential subdivision’s restrictive covenants in contravention of the final judgment of the trial court. For reasons that follow, we affirm.1 The standard of proof in civil contempt is a preponderance of the evidence.2 “In civil contempt appeals, if there is any evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that its order had been violated, we are without power to disturb the judgment absent an abuse of discretion.”3 Here, property owners in The Outback residential subdivision initially brought an action against the Korowotnys, who owned two lots in the subdivision, seeking to enforce the subdivision’s restrictive covenants. The complaint was amended to substitute The Outback Property Owners Association, Inc. the “Association” as the plaintiff. The complaint alleged that the Korowotnys had not constructed a residence on their property, but instead had built a 5,000 square foot warehouse building, placed two mobile homes on the property, and constructed a driveway from one lot to the other, all in violation of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants.
During the pendency of the case, the trial court entered several interim orders relating to the Korowotnys’ activities on their lots. In its order entered on March 4, 2004, the trial court ordered that:The Korowotnys shall not erect, place, or construct any structure or building upon their Outback Property. The Korowotnys shall not place any mobile or modular structure, add any structure, foundation, addition, or modification to the property nor shall they undertake any grading, except for the sole purpose of landscaping the property. No concrete shall be poured, footings or other substructure installed, nor shall any building or improvement to the property be modified or altered. This order does not prohibit routine maintenance of any building, improvement, or driveway. In September 2005, a jury trial was held, and the jury answered verdict interrogatories. In October 2005, the trial court rendered judgment based on the verdict interrogatories, finding that the Korowotnys had violated the subdivision covenants by: “temporarily living in a camper trailer on their property; the nature of the garage constructed ; and . . . in clear cutting a portion of their property in 2003.” The order required the Korowotnys to perform certain remedial measures to correct these violations, including: obtaining three quotes from landscape architects for landscaping plans to conceal the garage on their property; replacing vegetation that was clear-cut; and then implementing these plans. The Korowotnys appealed, and we affirmed the judgment of the trial court on March 14, 2007 in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 36.
