contempt hearing in Tennessee

2017This remedy is only available, however, when the contemnor “has the ability to comply with the order at the time of the contempt hearing.” Id. (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-104 (“If the contempt consists in an omission to perform an act which it is yet in the power of the person to perform, the person may be imprisoned until such person performs it.”)).

2016Thus, “[h]olding an individual in contempt is an available remedy „only when the individual has the ability to comply with the order at the time of the contempt hearing.‟” Moore v. Moore, No. M2004-00394-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 2456694 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2007) (quoting Ahern, 15 S.W.3d at 79 ).

2012Imprisonment may be ordered when civil contempt is found, but “the one in contempt has the ‘keys to the jail’ and can purge the contempt by complying with the court’s order.” Ahern, 15 S.W.3d at 79 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-104 ; Garrett v. Forest Lawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 588 S.W.2d 309, 315 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)).

2011Imprisonment may be ordered when civil contempt is found, but “the one in contempt has the ‘keys to the jail’ and can purge the contempt by complying with the court’s order.” Ahern, 15 S.W.3d at 79 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-104 ; Garrett v. Forest Lawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 588 S.W.2d 309, 315 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)).

2025Groesse v. Sumner, 582 S.W.3d 241 , 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (noting in civil contempt action that “[h]olding an individual in contempt is an available remedy ‘only when the individual has the ability to comply with the order at the time of the contempt hearing.’” (quoting Moore v. Moore, No. M2004-00394-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 2456694 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2007)); Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (“If the defendant is accused of failing to make payments required by order or decree, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charg

2025Groesse v. Sumner, 582 S.W.3d 241 , 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (noting in civil contempt action that “[h]olding an individual in contempt is an available remedy ‘only when the individual has the ability to comply with the order at the time of the contempt hearing.’” (quoting Moore v. Moore, No. M2004-00394-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 2456694 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2007)); Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (“If the defendant is accused of failing to make payments required by order or decree, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charg

2025Groesse v. Sumner, 582 S.W.3d 241 , 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (noting in civil contempt action that “[h]olding an individual in contempt is an available remedy ‘only when the individual has the ability to comply with the order at the time of the contempt hearing.’” (quoting Moore v. Moore, No. M2004-00394-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 2456694 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2007)); Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (“If the defendant is accused of failing to make payments required by order or decree, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charg

2021It explained that while there was “some level of threat and coercion inherent in a prospective contempt proceeding itself, the specter of contempt also can serve the legitimate purpose of providing a mechanism by which an obligor’s assets and income can be determined.” Id. (citing Causley v. LaFreniere, 259 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977); Moncada v. Moncada, 264 N.W.2d 104, 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)).

2021See Causley, 78 Mich. App. at 251 , 259 N.W.2d 445 ; Moncada, 81 Mich. App. at 27–28, 264 N.W.2d 104 .

2021It explained that while there was “some level of threat and coercion inherent in a prospective contempt proceeding itself, the specter of contempt also can serve the legitimate purpose of providing a mechanism by which an obligor’s assets and income can be determined.” Id. (citing Causley v. LaFreniere, 259 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977); Moncada v. Moncada, 264 N.W.2d 104, 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)).

2021See Causley, 78 Mich. App. at 251 , 259 N.W.2d 445 ; Moncada, 81 Mich. App. at 27–28, 264 N.W.2d 104 .

2017The Tennessee Supreme Court has noted that “[c]ourts have routinely held that the failure . . . to cite relevant authority in the argument section of the brief as required by Rule 27(a)(7) constitutes a waiver of the issue.” Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citing cases).

2016As an initial matter, we note that the trial court made a specific finding that Ms. Landis was “totally not credible.” The court went on to state that it “basically disregards most, if not all, of her testimony” and “does not believe anything that she said on the stand.” It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that “trial courts are best situated to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve factual disputes hinging on credibility determinations.” Mitchell v. Archibald, 971 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

2012Thus, a civil contempt order is “‘available only when the individual has the ability to comply with the order at the time of the contempt hearing.’” Id. (quoting Ahern, 15 S.W.3d at 79 ); see also Flowers, 209 S.W.3d at 613 (“Unlike criminal contempt, the [civil] contemnor can purge the contempt by complying with the court’s order.”) (citing Ahern, 15 S.W.3d at 79 ).

2011The courts must be allowed to “maintain the integrity of -2- their order.” “Even erroneous orders must be obeyed, at the risk of a contempt violation.” State v. Sammons, 656 S.W.2d 862 at 869 [(Tenn. Crim.

2008Because Appellant failed to include in the record a transcript or statement of the evidence of the contempt hearing, “we must assume that the record, had it been preserved, would have contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings.” Murphy v. Resurgence Fin., LLC, W2008-00197-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4457063 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2008) (citing Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)).

2008See Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d at 474 (approving the use of a special master in contempt proceedings filed in this Court stemming from a violation of the Supreme Court rule).

2006Additionally, much of the argument relates to his failure to attend the show cause hearing, not the contempt hearing. -4- Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 78-79 (Tenn. 2000); Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304, 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

2003As this court explained in State v. Richardson, 875 S.W.2d 671, 674 (Tenn. Crim.

2000At the contempt hearing, in fact, Husband solely relied on the fact he had paid all support owed, as of the day of the hearing. 4 In Foster v. Amcon Int'l, Inc., 621 S.W.2d 142, 145 (Tenn. 1981), the Supreme Court defined "abuse of discretion" as follows: The term has too often implied intentional wrong, bad faith or misconduct on the part of a trial judge.