Facts: Husband and Wife divorced in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County after a 17-year marriage that Wife says was marked by violence. As the divorce proceeded, the trial court required Husband to wear a GPS monitor and, in June 2024, it entered an order restraining Husband from going where Wife “currently resides and/or works.”

Wife soon filed a verified motion for criminal contempt, alleging Husband violated that order by coming around her residence and by failing to install the GPS tracker as ordered. She also filed for an order of protection, citing Husband’s history of abuse.

In October 2024, the trial court held a hearing on Wife’s contempt motion and request for an order of protection. Both Husband and Wife testified. Wife recounted that Husband seemed to be monitoring her home: he texted her, “There’s a maroon truck at the house,” leading her to believe he was watching her every move. Husband denied physically going to Wife’s residence, claiming a neighbor was feeding him information about the house. The trial court examined Husband’s phone during the hearing and discovered messages showing Husband asking the neighbor if Wife was at the house on specific dates.

After the hearing, the trial court found Husband guilty of two counts of criminal contempt, concluding that by texting the neighbor for updates on Wife and the former marital home, Husband was stalking Wife in violation of the court’s no-contact order.  Husband was sentenced to 20 days in jail and was warned that further harassment would result in jail time.

The trial court also granted Wife a one-year order of protection, citing Husband’s continued stalking and multiple incidents of physical abuse during the marriage. Under the order of protection, Husband was to stay away from Wife, except for brief contacts related to their children, and attend 24 batterer intervention classes.

Husband, acting pro se, appealed the judgment, arguing that the criminal contempt convictions were improper and the order of protection should not have been issued.

On Appeal: The Court reversed Husband’s criminal contempt convictions but affirmed the issuance of an order of protection.

In Tennessee, a person accused of criminal contempt must be given explicit notice of the charge, including the facts constituting the contempt, to satisfy due process. The notice, often in a show-cause motion or order, must inform the accused that the proceeding is for criminal contempt and state the specific conduct alleged.

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b) requires that the notice set a hearing, allow reasonable time to prepare a defense, and “state the essential facts” of the alleged contempt. In addition, to convict someone of criminal contempt, the court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that a lawful and clear order existed, that the defendant violated that order, and that the violation was willful. The burden is high: if the evidence is insufficient to prove contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, the finding must be set aside on appeal.

Here, the Court found that Husband lacked adequate notice of the contempt allegations and that the evidence failed to show he violated the order he was charged with violating, so the contempt convictions could not stand:

The June 6, 2024, order prohibited Husband from coming around Wife’s residence or place of work. In its order finding Husband guilty of contempt, the trial court stated that the evidence was “not conclusive” as to whether Husband ever went near Wife. As Husband points out, the burden of proof in a criminal contempt proceeding is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a far cry from “not conclusive.” To reiterate, the order Husband was charged with violating required him to stay away from Wife’s work or residence. It did not bar him from texting the neighbor to ask about Wife or the house. Despite this, Husband was found guilty of criminal contempt for texting the neighbor to ask about Wife and the house. Based on the trial court’s own findings, Husband did not violate the trial court’s [] order. The evidence is insufficient to support the criminal contempt findings by the trial court of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reverse the Trial Court’s findings of criminal contempt against Husband.

Husband was charged with physically going to Wife’s residence, but the trial court punished him for texting a neighbor instead. Because the notice was inadequate and the proof did not show an actual violation of the no-contact order, i.e., there was no evidence that Husband himself went to Wife’s home, the two contempt convictions were vacated.

K.O.’s Comment: Tennessee courts require that anyone accused of criminal contempt be told exactly what they did wrong so they can defend themselves. In my experience, lawyers filing contempt petitions must be extremely precise, i.e., identify the specific court order and the specific acts that violated it. If the proof at the hearing shows a different violation than what’s in the petition, the court can’t use that to convict someone of contempt. When a contempt charge is handled correctly, i.e., clear order, clear notice, and solid evidence of a willful violation, an appellate court will uphold it. But if any of those pieces are missing, a criminal contempt finding is vulnerable on appeal.

Source: Scholl v. Scholl (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, November 19, 2025).

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