### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Su bmitt ed on B ri ef

s, Ma y 21, 200 4

TE R ES A BA R GE R v. LI N D A M C GI N N IS , e t al.

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Ham blen Coun ty No. 2002-428 Hon. Thomas R. F rier son, Ju dge

No. E2003-01932-COA- R3-CV - F ILED JULY 23, 2004

Th e Tria l Co urt a wa

rd e d p la int if

f Jud g me nt a g a ins t de fen da nts . O n a pp e a l de fe nd a nts so ug ht t o
reve rse Judgment of the Trial Court. No tra nscript of e vidence was filed. We a ffirm the Judgment of the Tria l Co urt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t A ffirm e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.

L inda McGinnis, Pro se.

OP IN ION

Plaintiff, Tere sa B arg er, filed a C omplaint ag ainst her landlord, L inda McGinnis, and Mc Gi nn is’ pu rp orte d a g e nt, Te rry Mc Cr a c ke n, a lle g ing that on July 13 , 2 00 2, the de fe nd a nts wrong fully

shut off plaintiff’s w ater

and ele ctricity , had ente red the home and thrown out her food, and had c hang ed the locks a nd padlocke d the hom e so pl aintiff could not re turn. Plaintiff asserte d that sh e wa s c ur

re nt on he r re nt pa y me nts thr ou g h June , a nd ha d the July re nt pa y me nt re a dy on July 2, 2002, but defe ndants neve r ca me to collect, a s had bee n their custom a n d p ra ct i ce

. Plaintiff

a sse rt e d th a t sh e wa s g ive n no no tic e to va c a te , a nd c ha rg e d the de fe nd a nts wi th a br e a c h o f the le a se ag ree ment.

A hea

ring was he ld on Aug ust 5, 2002, and the Court found that it was undisputed-2-

that d e f e n d a n ts c h a n g e dth e lo c k s a n d in s ta ll e da d e a d b o lt o n th e r e s id e n c e w ith o u t p roviding plaintiff key s, and that it was also undisputed that defe ndants shut off the water a nd elec tricity for the re sidence . The Court further found the re w as a dispute among the parties r eg arding the payment of rent and utilit ies, but that de fenda nts ha d filed no leg al proce eding s ag ainst plaintiff. The Court order ed that the r estraining order prohibiting de fenda nts from interfe ring with plaintiff’s use of the residenc e, would be converted t o a temporary injunction pending further hearing, and t hat plaintiff would have use of the re sidence pending a further hearing , with the water and elec tricity restore d.
On Aug ust 15, 2002, plaintiff filed a Motion to Show Cause, asserting that plaintiff had not y et re ceive d key s to the residenc e, and that the ut iliti es had not been restore d. Plaintiff asked that de fe nd a nts be he ld i n c on te mpt , an d pun ish e d in a man ne r suf fi c ie nt to co mpe l compli a nc e wi th the Court’s orde r.

At a h e ar in g o n A u g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , th e Co u r t f o u n d th a t d e f

e n d a n ts f a il e d to appear though due notice wa s g iven, and f u rt h er found that def

endants we re in willful contempt of the Court’s order , and would be fined $50.00 per day from Aug ust 5, 2002 (the da te the prior or der w as enter ed) until they

complied with the Court’s orde r. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Judgme nt by Def ault on October

29, 2002, alleg ing that mor e tha n thi rt y da y s ha d pa sse d sin c e the fi lin g of the Compla int , a ndde fe nd a nts ha d f a ile d to

answe r. De fenda nts then filed a handwritten Mot ion for J udg ment by Def ault, alleg ing that they

had “answ ere d plaintiff [sic] complaint to the best of our means” and see king judg ment ag ainst plaintiff. Plaintiff’s L eg al Aid attorne y then withdrew

.
Def endants then filed what appear s to be a counter- claim, alleg ing va rious char g es ag ainst plaintiff for da mag e to the re sidence an d o utstanding r ent and utilities. Pl aintiff filed a n Answer to Co u n te r c la im , a n d c o n c e d e d th a t s h e o w e d c e r ta in th in g s , b u t a ll e g e d th a t s h e was not responsible for

most of the char g es def

endants soug ht.

At a court hearing on May 20, 2003, the Court e ntere d an Orde r which r ecites “ based up on the e vid e nc e a ndte sti mon y pr e se nte d” , th e Court fou nd that de fe nd a nts sh ou ld r e imb ur se plaintiff $721.07 for hote l expenses and her persona lty

which they

disposed of. The Court f

ound that plaintiff should pay

12 day s’ re nt and utiliti es, plus the cost of pa int, fo r a t o t al o f $145.80. The Cou rt of fs e t th e tw o ju dg me nts a ndor de re d d e fe nd a nts to p ay pl aintif f $ 57 5. 27 . T he Cou rt

a lso order ed defenda nts to pay $1,500.00 in contempt fines into the reg istry of the c ourt. Def

endants filed Notice of Appea l.

De fe nd a nts ba sic a lly

a sk fo r this Court to rel ie ve the m f ro m th e Judg me nt. Def endants are pro se, and their brief doe s not follow the proper briefing format a s set forth in Tenn. R. App. P. 27. W h i l e we af fo rd some lenienc y

to pro se parties, it is difficult to determine w hat relief defe ndants are asking from the doc uments that have be en filed.

There is no transcript or s t at em ent of the evidence from the he aring , and no notice-3-

was filed a s require d by

Tenn. R. App. P. 24(d), a nd appellee did not file a brief

I n the abse nce of

a tra nscript from th e h ea ri ng , or a state ment of the e vidence , we must pre sume there was sufficie nt evidence to support the Trial Court’s Judgment. In re Estate of Hende rson , 121 S.W .3d 643 (Tenn. 2003)

.

De fe n d an t s also ask this Court to permit them to make monthlypay ments on the

c on te mpt jud g me nt, bu t this re qu e st is pro pe rl y a dd re sse d to the Tria l Co urt. C on te mpt jud g me nts
are revie wed under an abuse of discretion standa rd. Po we ll v . P owe ll , 124 S.W. 3d 10 0 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 2003). The Court had the discre tion to punish defe ndants for f ailing to c omply

with the Court’s prior orde r ( see Tenn. Code Ann. §29- 9-102 throug h 104), but such punishment ca n only be imposed afte r finding that the contempt is w illful. Se e als o A he rn v . A he rn , 15 S.W .3d 73 (Tenn. 2000) . The C o u rt i n i t s Or d ero f C o n t em p tfo u n d t h e c o n t em p twa s wi l l fu l at t h e A u gu s t2 6 , 2 0 0 2 h ea ri n g.

As to the a mou nt o f the c on te mpt jud g me nt, the Tria l Co urt or de re d de fe nd a nts to “pay the contempt fine from the date of the Orde r providing for the f ine until the power w as re stored. T h e C o u r tf

i n d s t h a ta

p e r i o d o f t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a ys s h a l l b e a s s e s s e d a tF i f t y D o l l ar s ( $ 5 0

. 0 0 ) p e r

d a y, tot a lin g F if

te e n Hu nd re d Do lla

rs ($ 1, 50 0. 00 ), a nd sh a ll be pa id t o th e Cle rk & Ma ste r’ s O ff

ic e int o the re g istry

of the Court.”

Sin c e the re is n o r e c or d o f w ha t pr oo f t he Cou rt ha d b e fo re it at th a t he ari ng , it is impossibl e to tell whether the Court abused its discre t i o n i n as sessing this fine. Absent an

e v i d e n t i ar y r e c o r d , t h e ap p e l l a n t s c a n n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h e y ar e e n t i t l e d t o a n y r e l i e f

. A c c o r d i n g l y,
we a ff ir m t he J ud gme nt o f the Tria l Co urt, a ndre ma ndwi th the c os t of the app e a l a sse sse d to

app e lla nts

.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.