Randall Eugene Denton v. Deborah Meadows Denton, W2017-00472-COA-R3-CV

Parties divorced in 2005; an MDA assigned a 60-acre tract (to Denton) and a 28-acre tract with the home (to Meadows Denton); each party assumed certain mortgage obligations with a hold-harmless provision.
The parties later agreed Denton would refinance both mortgages into a single loan in his name and use rental income from mobile homes to pay the loan.
Meadows Denton filed contempt petitions alleging Denton stopped making payments and failed to protect her from foreclosure; multiple hearings and a bankruptcy proceeding occurred.
Trial court found Denton in civil contempt and ordered him jailed “until payment of the debt or further order,” rejecting Denton’s claim that he lacked ability to pay.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the contempt finding and incarceration were proper given (1) lack of a clear court order specifying the exact act or payment required to purge contempt and (2) evidence Denton lacked the ability to pay the debt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Denton willfully violated the MDA and may be held in civil contempt	Meadows Denton argued Denton willfully failed to protect her from foreclosure by not paying the mortgage as agreed	Denton argued he lacked present ability to pay and thus the failure was not willful	Court reversed contempt sanction because the record did not show ability to pay and the contempt order failed to specify the precise act or amount required to purge contempt
Whether the trial court’s incarceration order until “payment of the debt” was proper	Implicitly: incarceration was a proper coercive sanction to compel payment	Denton: order vague and required an impossible payment given his finances; he had testified he lacked ability to pay	Court held the incarceration order was improper: order did not precisely state what payment or action would purge contempt and evidence showed inability to pay the debt amount reflected in the record

Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (elements and standards for civil contempt and requirement that orders be clear and specific)
Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2000) (ability to pay must be determined before finding contempt for nonpayment)
Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (contemnor cannot be punished for repeated offenses if lacking present ability; contempt requires present ability to perform)
Leonard v. Leonard, 341 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn. 1960) (when contemnor testifies inability to pay, an adjudication of ability must rest on convincing evidence)
Robinson v. Air Draulics Eng’g Co., 377 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1964) (court discretion in civil contempt sanctions)
Gossett v. Gossett, 241 S.W.2d 934 (Tenn. 1951) (commitment for contempt only when contemnor has present ability to perform)