PER CURIAM:
This case is before the court on Defendants/Appellees' Motion for Summary Disposition. Based upon a review of the record, the district court found Plaintiff/Appellant Michael Vaughn Hansen to be in contempt of orders of the district court that he seeks to appeal. He has not obtained a stay of those orders or taken appropriate steps to purge his contempt prior to filing this appeal.
Plaintiff appeals the March 11, 2008 Order of Judgment and the February 23, 2009 Final Order of Judgment. In a May 12, 2008 order, the district court found that Plaintiff was in contempt of the March 11, 2008 summary judgment. That contempt order again required Plaintiff to (1) distribute one-half of the trust estate to Defendant Jimmy LeRoy Hansen, (2) pay the full value of the judgment, (3) provide an accounting of the bank account of the decedent, Louise S. Hansen, to show the balance at the time of her death and verify the accuracy of a single cash payment made to Defendant as being equal to one-half of the balance at the time of the distribution, and (4) pay a fine. In the findings of fact supporting the February 23, 2009 final judgment, the district court found Plaintiff to be in contempt of the May 12, 2008 order. Accordingly, the district court found, in relevant part:
11. [D]espite the attempts of the Defendant and the Order of this Court, and approximately seven months since the Order of Contempt was entered requiring the discovery disclosure, Plaintiff entirely failed to provide the accounting to the Defendant. . . . .
13. Even on the day of trial, the Plaintiff personally failed to appear, and further had not yet provided the accounting.
14. Furthermore, the conduct of the Plaintiff is contemptuous of the Court's Order entered May 12, 2008. This is now the second time that Plaintiff has acted in contempt of this Court's Order, and his contemptuous conduct in the present instance is more egregious than the last
16. This Court finds that the Plaintiff clearly had knowledge of the May 12, 2008 Order, considering the correspondence between counsel and the pleadings exchanged. The Plaintiff certainly was able to comply with the Order, but refused to do so, considering the amount of time since the Order allowing Plaintiff to procure the necessary accounting as well as Plaintiff's sworn testimony of his financial ability to pay all sums ordered by the court to be paid.
17. However, despite his knowledge and ability to comply with this Court's order, Plaintiff has failed to take any steps to satisfy the Order of this Court, including a requirement that discovery materials be produced to the Defendant.
Based upon the foregoing findings, the district court concluded that "Plaintiff acted contemptuously of this Court's Order of May 12, 2008" and again ordered Plaintiff to comply. In the February 23, 2009 Final Order of Judgment, the district court again found Plaintiff to be in contempt and ordered him (1) to distribute the estate as previously ordered; (2) to pay the costs and fees previously ordered; (3) to pay the full remaining amount of the judgment; and (4) "to provide verification of the accounts as held by Louise Hansen upon her death to verify the accuracy of the single payment to the Defendant." There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has taken any action to purge his contempt.
The holding in D'Aston v. D'Aston, 790 P.2d 590 (Utah Ct. App. 1990), applies to this case. The approach adopted by this court in D'Aston does not deny an appellant the right to an appeal, but it requires a party in contempt to "satisfy the court's concerns before [he] may exercise that right." Id. at 591. Pursuant to D'Aston, this appeal is stayed for a period of thirty days from the date of this decision to allow Plaintiff "to submit to the process of the trial court and give this court notice of [his] actions." Id. If Plaintiff gives this court written verification of his compliance with the district court's orders within the thirty-day period, we will consider the appeal on the merits, commencing with consideration of the pending motion for summary disposition. However, if Plaintiff fails to either purge his contempt or obtain a stay from the district court within the thirty-day period, this appeal will be dismissed without further notice or argument.