Jacqueline G. Furlong v. Kevin Keane Furlong
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wife obtained a protective order in Sevier County with a provision to deliver the 2006 Prius to Wife; Knox County later amended order restricting contact and detailing use of interior/exterior of the marital home.
- Amended order permitted Husband to be at the exterior of the home on some days and required Wife to have interior exclusive possession on those days; later, other periods reversed access rights.
- On September 24, 2010, Husband was to enter the driveway between 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to evaluate/repair Wife’s Volvo and to obtain the camper title; the title and car repair were not completed that day.
- Wife testified that Husband arrived at approximately 7:10 p.m., she observed him from the exterior; she contacted police and alleged fear; two text messages were exchanged.
- Special Master found one violation (coming about Wife) and extended the order for five years; Husband was jailed for 10 days and required a $2,500 bond; Wife’s counsel later moved to address additional alleged violations.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the November 23, 2010 order, holding the contempt conviction and the five-year extension of the order of protection erroneous due to ambiguity and lack of willfulness; remanded for costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving on a public road violated the order | Keane (Husband) contends the order was ambiguous and did not clearly prohibit mere presence on a public street nearby. | Furlong argues the order clearly prohibited coming about and supervising the car repair, including in proximity to the home. | Order ambiguous; conviction reversed. |
| Whether the no-contact/possession provisions are unconscionable | Keane argues coercive enforcement via an order of protection creates unconscionable contractual obligations. | Furlong maintains provisions are enforceable terms of protection. | Not reached on the dispositive basis; issues avoided on non-constitutional grounds. |
| Whether the $2,500 bond is unconstitutional under VIII and Article I, Section 16 | Keane asserts the statutory bond is permissible; constitutional challenges dismissed if not dispositive. | Furlong asserts bond is unconstitutional punitive. | Not reached; case disposed on other grounds. |
| Whether the bond requirement is a de facto punitive fine | Keane contends bond acts as punishment without trial rights applied. | Furlong argues bond is a statutory condition. | Not reached; reversed for ambiguity and sufficiency concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (four-element test for contempt and standards for willfulness and clarity)
- Cable v. Clemmons, 36 S.W.3d 39 (Tenn. 2001) (protective orders and contempt proceedings framework)
- McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (advisory opinions and avoidance where possible)
- Haynes v. City of Pigeon Forge, 883 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (avoid constitutional determinations when non-constitutional grounds exist)