Facts: Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. Their divorce decree said, “Husband is awarded his guns and any other personal property in the possession of Wife.”

In 2017, Husband petitioned to hold Wife in civil contempt for failing to return his personal belongings as ordered by the divorce court.

Husband presented an affidavit itemizing the missing items and placing their total value at $3,038.

Wife admitted she gave some of Husband’s property to her adult son because she was afraid Husband would give them to his new wife like his grandfather had done. Wife admitted those items belong to Husband and should have been provided to him.

After hearing the proof, the trial court found Wife in civil contempt for refusing to return Husband’s personal property and entered a judgment against her for $3,038.

Wife appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

To prove a claim of civil contempt in Tennessee, the petitioner must show:

• there is a lawful order;
• the order is clear, specific, and unambiguous;
• the person violated or disobeyed the order; and
• the person’s violation was willful.

The clarity element requires that the order precisely spell out the details of compliance to enable a reasonable person to know exactly what actions are required or forbidden.

Orders alleged to have been violated must be construed using an objective standard that considers both the language and circumstances of the order, including the audience to whom the order is addressed.

Wife argued that the order directing her to give Husband “his guns and any other personal property in the possession of Wife” was not clear, specific, and unambiguous.

The Court found the order was clear enough to the parties:

It is important to note that, in the divorce decree, the trial court found that, “[s]hortly before the filing of the divorce, the [parties’] house burned.” The trial court further found: “Wife agreed in her testimony to return Husband’s guns and personal property, so Husband is awarded his guns and other personal property from Wife’s storage.” Thus, the trial court’s ruling was tailored to the agreed state of affairs described by the parties. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the final divorce decree was sufficiently clear and unambiguous regarding Wife’s obligation to allow Husband to retrieve his property from the storage unit.

After undoubtedly spending more in legal fees than the $3,038 judgment being appealed, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

Tomes v. Tomes (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, July 6, 2021).

If you found this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.