### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 4, 200 3 S es sio n
WI LMA JE AN HUGGI NS v. TH ERON EUG ENE HUG GI NS Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty No. I-2K 223 Timothy L. E aster , Judge

No. M2002- 02072-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 31, 2005

This appea l involves a civil contempt sanction agai n s t a for mer husband f

or failing to make payments require d by

the parties’ marital d i s s o lution agr eeme nt. The former wifefiled a pe tition in the C ircuit Court for W illiamson County seeking to hold her former husband in either c riminal or civil contempt. Following a hearing, the trial court awa rded the former wife a

$26,378 judgme nt for the a rre ara g e and a

$2,000 judgme nt for attorne y ’s fe es. The t ri al court a lso found the forme r husban d to b e inc iv il c o n te mp t an d o r d e r e d h im in c ar c e r a te d f

o r s ix m o n th s o r

u n ti l h e ma d e the payments require d by the martial dissoluti on ag ree ment. The former husband a ppeale d. We affirm thepo rt ion s o f the jud g me nt a wa rd ing thefo rm e r w if

e $2 8, 378; h ow e ve r, we va c a te thec ivi l contempt judg ment ag ainst the forme r husband be cause the trial court failed to make an a ffirmative find i n g t h at he wa s prese ntly able to mee t his financial oblig ations under the ma rital dissoluti on ag ree ment. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed in Par t, Vacat ed in Par t, and Rem anded
W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., delivered the opi n i o n o f the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , S P

. J ., joined.
Vi nc e nt Zuc c aro , B re ntw oo d, Te nn e sse e , f or theapp e llant, Th e ro n E ug e ne Hu g g ins

. Jame s L . Cu rt is, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or theapp e lle e , Wil ma

Jea n H ug g ins

. OP IN ION
I. On Aug ust 28, 2000, Wil ma J ean Hug g ins and The ron Eug ene H ug g ins were divorce d in the Circuit Court for W illiamson County

. The divorce decre e approved a nd incorporated their marital dissoluti on ag ree ment in which Mr. Hug g ins ag ree d to pay (1) the minim um monthlybalanc es on certain marit al d ebts , (2) an additional $250 a month toward the retire ment of marital c redit ca rd d eb t s , an d (3 ) r eh ab i l i t at i v e a l i m o n y o f $1 , 2 0 0 a mo n t h fo r fi v e y ea rs o r un t i l t h e d ea t h o r r em arri ageM r. H u g g ins fi le d a m o tio n in th e t r ia l c o u rt se e k ing a p p ro v a l o f a sta te m e n t o f t h e e v id e n c e fo r u se in this 1 appe al

. H owe v er , nei t h er M r
. H u g g i n s n or h i s l aw y er a ppea r ed i n c ou r t on t h e dat e t h e mot i on w as t o be h ea r d. A cco rdingl y , the t ri al c o urt e nt ered a n o rder o n N o vem b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 de ny i ng t he m o t i o n t o ap p rove t he st at em ent of t he evi d ence. M r. H uggi ns’ s l awyer co nced ed d uri ng o ral a rgume nt b ef o re t hi s co urt that the ab sence of a f act ual record
o f an y so rt p la c e d his c lien t at a d isa d v a n ta g e in this a p p e a l.
-2- of Ms

. Hug g ins. Mr. Hugg ins also ag ree d to maintain a $100,000 term l ife insurance policy naming Ms. Hu g g ins a s th e so le be ne fi c iary , a s w e ll a s sh ort- a ndlon g -t e rm dis abil ity po lic ie s su ff

ic ie nt t o c ov e r the re qu ir e d mo nth ly pay me nts to M s. Hu g g ins

. Mr . H ug g ins ma de se ve ra l of the re qu ir e d pa y me nts bu t eve ntu a lly de fa ult e d. Ac c or din g to Mr . H ug g ins , h e e xpe ri e nc e d f inanc ia l a nde mpl oyme nt d if fi c ult ie s th a t mad e it impo ssi ble fo r h im to continue making the payments. Mr. Hug g ins d i d n o t , howeve r, re turn to court to see k a mod if ic a tio n o f the div or c e de c re e to r e du c e his fi na nc ia l ob lig a tio ns . O n Jan ua ry 23 , 20 02 , Ms. Hug g ins filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Will i am son Countyseeking to have Mr. H ug g ins he ld i n c ivi l c on te mpt

or , a lte rn a tiv e ly , c ri min a l c on te mpt fo r h is f a ilu reto mak e themon thl y payments require d by

the divorce d ec re e. S he also soug ht a judg ment for the pay ments that Mr. Hug g ins had not made.
Th e tria l c ou rt

c on du c te d a ben c h tri a l and on Au g us t 20, 200 2 en te re d a n o rd e r a wa rd ing Ms. Hu g g ins a ju dgmen t aga ins t Mr . H ug g ins fo r $ 26 ,3 78 re pr e se nti ng theba la nc e of his un pa id oblig ati o ns under the ma

rital dissoluti on ag ree ment and an a dditional $2,000 for attorne y ’s fe es. The trial court de cl i n ed t o h o l d Mr. Hug g ins in criminal contempt but held him in civil contempt and order ed h i m i ncar cer ated f or six months or until he “purg ed himself of c ontempt.” On Mr. Hu g g ins ’s mot ion , th e tria l c ou rt stay e d h is j a il s e nte nc e pe nd ing app e a l.
Mr. Huggin s pr e sse s se ve ra l arg ume nts on app e a l, a ll o f w hic h a rewi tho ut m e ri t. H is
assertions reg arding the fa ctual basis for the ar rea rag e judg ment and the f

inding of contempt ar e undermined by

his failure to provide this court with a transc ript or statement of the evidenc e. As 1 the appe llant, Mr. Hug g ins had the primary responsibilityto prepa

re a fac tual rec ord cont ai n i n g a full, acc urate , and complete acc ount of what transpired at tria l with reg ard to the i ssues he planne d to raise on a

ppeal. Davis v. Tenne ssean , 8 3 S. W.3 d 1 25 , 1 27 n. 2 (T e nn
. Ct. Ap p. 20 01 ); Mc Do na ld v. Onoh , 772. S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). Wher e, as he re, an appellant f ails to provide a fa ctual re cord on a

ppeal, “ we must assume that the r ecor d, had i t b ee n p rese rved, w ould have contained suf

ficient e vidence to support the t rial court’s fac tual finding s.” Craft v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , No. M2002-00040-COA- R3-CV, 2003 WL 2164276 7 , at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. J uly 14, 2003) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Thus, wereje ct all of Mr. H ug g ins’s arg uments challeng ing thee vid e nti ary

ba sis fo r the tria l c ou rt ’s ru lin g s. Mr. Hugg in s a ls o r a is e s s e v e r a l p r o c e d u r a l an d s u b s tan ti v e is s u e s r e g ar d in g h is c o n te mpt punishment. Most of these ar gu m ents are colore d by his mist aken impre ssion that the trial court found him g uilty of criminal contempt. The Aug ust 20, 2002 order clea rly ref lects that the trial court
e xone rate d M r. Hu g g ins of thec harge o f cri min a l c on te mpt a ndins te a d f

ou ndhim g uil ty of c ivi l-3-

c on te mpt on ly

. Th us , a ll of Mr

. Hu g g ins ’s arg ume nts pr e mis e d on his be lie f that he wa s f ou ndg uil ty of criminal contempt are meritless. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) pe rmits this court to addr ess issues not raised by the parties in order to p re ve nt p re

jud ic e to the jud ic ia l pr oc e ss a nd to pr e ve nt inj ury to the int e re sts of thepu bli c . T his
case require s us to address a fundame ntal omission i n the t rial court’s judgme nt of conte mpt even tho ug h it wa s n ot r a ise d b y

Mr . H ug g ins

. Civ il c on te mpt , u nli ke c ri min a l c on te mpt , is de sig ne d to c oe rc e a n ind ivi du a l to c omp ly wi th
a court’s order

. Do e v . B oa rd of P ro f’ l R e sp on sib ili ty , 1 04 S.W. 3d 46 5, 47 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) . T hu s, befor e sente ncing an individual to jail for civil contempt for failure to make pay ments require d by a pre vious court ord er , t h e trial court must affirmatively find that the individual has the pre sent ability to make the r equire d payments. Loy v. Loy , 32 Tenn. App. 470, 479- 80, 2 2 2 S.W .2d 873, 87 7- 78 (1 94 9) ; se e als o S mi th v . S mi th , No. M 2 0 0 1 -02231-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21230980, at *3 (T e nn
. Ct. Ap p. May 29 , 2 00 3) (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) . We ha ve app lie d th is
ru le e ve n w he retheapp e llant faile d to pr e se rv e the e vid e nc e on app e a l, a nd the c a se is b e fo rethi s court on the te chnica l rec ord alone

. Cha pp e ll v. C ha

ppe ll , 37 Tenn. App. 242, 248, 255- 57, 261 S.W .2d 824, 827-28, 831-32 ( 1952).
Th e Au g us t 20, 200 2 ord e r co ntains a n expr e ss fi nd ing that Mr. Hu g g ins wa s in“ wi llf ul c ivi l
c on te mpt ” fo r faili ng “ to ma int a in the pay me nt of a lim on y , sh or t- te rm a nd lon g -t e rm di sab il ity insurance , and payment of the credit card debts.” Howeve r, i t does notcontain an e x press finding that Mr. Hug g ins is prese ntly able to ma ke the payments require d by t h e m ar i t al dissoluti on a g re e me nt. Ac c or din g ly , w e va c a te Mr . H ug g ins ’s six- mon th j a il s e nte nc e fo r c ivi l c on te mpt

. II.
We a ffirm the portions of the judgme nt r equiring Mr. Hug g ins to pay Ms. Hug g ins $28,378,
va c a te thepo rt ionof

the jud g me nt fi nd ing Mr . H ug g ins in c ivi l c on te mpt , a ndre ma ndthec a se to the trial court for further proc eeding s consistent with this opinion. We ta x the costs of this appea l to Theron Eug ene H ug g ins and his surety for whic h execution, if nece ssary , may issue.

______________________________ WILL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.