### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

May 24, 200 7

TERRE J O FIE LDS v . JAMES R. FIELDS, J R.

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-03-1568 D .J. Alissand ratos, Chancellor

No. W2006-01613-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Jul y 31, 2007

Husband wa s found i n ci v il contempt and incar cer ated. He was fur ther e njoined from being

selfemploy ed. He appea ls only the injunction which we r ever se.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed in p art; Reve rsed in part; and Rem anded

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io no f

th e c o u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S
., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

Chr ist ine Ste ph e ns and

B re tt A . Sc hu

be rt , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Jame s R. F ie lds
, J r.

Terr e Jo Fields, Pro Se

.

OP IN ION

I n post divorce pr ocee dings, the ap p el l an t , J ames R. Fie lds, J r., wa s found g uilty of three counts of civil contempt and se ntence d to incar cer ation until such tim e as he purg ed himself of suc h

c on te mpt

. T h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s o r d e r , s t y l e d O r d e r o nF i f t h an d S i xth P e t i t i o nf

o r C i v i l C o n t e mp t, further provides that: “The defe ndant is enjoined fr om self-e mploy ment and is order ed to see k and ob ta in e mpl oy

me nt oth e r tha

n se lf -e mpl oy me nt. ” Mr

. F ie lds pe rf

e c te d a tim e ly a

pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t. Howeve r, he does not a

ppeal the finding of contempt but r ather the injunction enjoining him from being self-e mploy ed. The appellant’ s brief doe s not contain a stateme nt of the issues presented for revie w. See Rule 27(a) (4) Te nn. R. App. P. However , it is appa rent from the br ief that the sole issue on appea l conce rns the issue as to the injunction. The or der of the trial cou rt s et s forth four steps which Mr. F ields must take to purg e himself of contempt, the fourth being furnishing proof to the Court of his employ

ment.

Mr. Fie lds argues that trial courts have statutory power s to punish for contempt, of whic h the trial court c lear ly

availed itself in that Mr. F ields w as i n ca rc er at ed on at least two prior occ asions-2-

during the cour se of the proce eding s below for being in contempt for failure to comply with orders of the trial court. I n addition, the trial court may find an individual to be w illfully undere mploy ed, which the tria l court in the pre sent ca se also did.

Ha vin g re vie we d th is r e c or d, we c an a pp re c iate the tr ia l c ourt ’s fr us tr a tio n w ith Mr . F ie lds

. Th e re c or d re ve a ls that he is a sel f- e mpl oy e d plum bin g c on tr a c tor , but at the tim e of the he ari nghis license w as not curr ent. The he aring on the petit ion for contempt was conducted on June 6, 2006. Mr. Fie lds’ sister testified that she ha d volunteere d her se rvice s to her brothe r as a bookkeepe r and that his busin es s lost money during September, O ctober , November and De cembe r of 2005 a nd J anuar y and May of 2006. The business showed a profit of a pproxi mately

$621 in Febr

uary 2006, $1,089 in March 2006 a

nd $5,611 in April 2006. I n addition she stated that she ha d loaned he r brother be tween $17,000 a nd $18,000.

I n addition to the powers c onfer red upon c ourts by the Constitut ion and ac ts of the Gene ral Assembly , courts ar e endow ed with cer tain inhere nt powers. The power to control the pra ctice a

nd proce dure of

the cour ts is i n h er en t i n the judiciary

. Sta te v . M all ar d , 40 S.W .3d 473, 481 (Tenn. 2001). I t is an inherent powe r of a court to pro m u l gate necessa ry proce dural rule s. Hayne s v. McKenzie Mem ’l Hosp. , 667 S.W .2d 497, 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 1984). In An de rso n Co un ty Qu ar te rly Cou rt v . J

ud ge s o f 28 J ud ic ial Cir c uit , 579 S.W .2d 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. De c. 12, 1978), th this Court adopted the principle that in utiliz ing the appar ent powers doctrine, the court a sserting the power must establish reasona

ble nec essity

by “cle ar, c og ent and c onvincing proof.”

Trial courts possess the i nhere nt authority to take actions to preve nt abuse of the discover y proce ss. Al e

x an de r v. J

ac k so n R ad iolog yAs so c s. , 156 S.W .3d 11 (Tenn. Ct App. 2004). Howeve r, the po we rs of

the c ourt are no t un lim ite d and the inh e re nt po we rs of the c ourt mus t be e xer c ise d w ith both restra int and discretion.

W e ar e o f t h e o p i n i o nt h a t t h e c h an c e l l o r e x c e e d e d h i s a u t h o r i t y b y su a s

po nteenjoining Mr

. Fields fr om self-e mploy

ment and in making that a condition of purginghimself of conte mpt. Mr. F ie lds ha s a

ri g ht t o p ur su e his c ho se n o c c up a tio n, bu t mu st s uff e r t he c on se qu e nc e s if

he fa ils to comply with orders of

the cour t. H e i s n o doubt awar e of the se conse quence s, based on his prior incar cer ations for c ontempt. The issuance of the injunction is r ever sed. The judg ment of the trial court is otherw ise aff

irmed.

As noted, t he trial c ourt issued the injunction sua sponte. We find no indication in the rec ord that Ms . F ie lds so ug ht t

his re lie f. Al tho ug h s he wa s r e pr e se nte d in the pr oc e e din g s b e low , M s. F ie lds a pp e ars be fo re thi s Co ur

t pr o s e . I n our discre tion, we tax the c osts of this appeal to James R. Fields, J r.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER, J UDGE