582 S.W.3d 241
Tenn. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parents have one child (born 2010). A December 2013 agreed order set Father’s child support at $800/month and $50/month toward substantial arrears; Father later defaulted.
- Mother (with Title IV-D involvement) filed a contempt petition in June 2014; a magistrate found Father in civil contempt in July 2014 and ordered a $2,600 purge payment, which Father paid.
- Father requested a rehearing; a de novo rehearing before a special judge occurred in August 2016. The judge found Father in civil contempt for willfully failing to pay and ordered an $8,525 purge payment (reflecting additional arrears), and reserved attorney’s fees. Father appealed.
- The juvenile court later entered a final attorney’s-fee judgment of $29,648.80 for Mother (July 2017), and a separate child-support modification was decided in November 2017 (not the subject of this appeal).
- On appeal Father raised (inter alia) challenges to the contempt evidentiary standard, the trial court’s consideration of post‑magistrate evidence at the rehearing, due‑process/double‑jeopardy claims, the finding that he had the ability to pay (willfulness), and the attorney’s‑fee award. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/State) | Defendant's Argument (Sumner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Proper evidentiary standard for civil contempt | Preponderance of the evidence applies; longstanding Tennessee law | Clear and convincing standard should apply | Preponderance is correct; Court of Appeals follows Tennessee precedent (no change) |
| 2) May trial court consider intervening period at de novo rehearing | Yes; rehearing is de novo and may consider compliance through rehearing date | Rehearing should be limited to record/time of magistrate’s hearing | Rehearing is de novo; court properly considered later evidence |
| 3) Procedural/substantive due process & double jeopardy | Father had notice, counsel, and full opportunity; civil contempt not subject to double jeopardy | Lack of notice of consideration of post‑magistrate evidence; double punishment because he previously purged once | No due‑process violation; double jeopardy inapplicable to civil contempt; Father waived some objections |
| 4) Ability to pay / willfulness (core contempt question) | Evidence showed Father had resources but prioritized other obligations; Father failed to prove inability to pay | Father lacked ability to pay and met burden to show inability | Factfinding credited trial court’s credibility determinations; evidence does not preponderate against finding of ability to pay and willful noncompliance |
| 5) Award of attorney’s fees to Mother ($29,648.80) | Fees reasonable, Mother prevailing, award authorized by statute; court considered RPC 1.5 factors | Award violates due process/double jeopardy or failed to consider Father’s ability to pay | Fee award affirmed as within trial court discretion; double jeopardy inapplicable; court considered relevant factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (describes civil contempt elements and standards, including preponderance standard for violation and willfulness analysis)
- Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2000) (discusses civil vs. criminal contempt and availability of incarceration as coercive remedy)
- McClain v. McClain, 539 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (use of incarceration analyzed to determine civil vs. criminal contempt)
- Gibson v. Bikas, 556 S.W.3d 796 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (civil proceedings and inapplicability of double jeopardy)