United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 No. 08-2003

___________

In re: Tommy F. Robinson, *

*

Debtor, *

---------- *

*

Tommy F. Robinson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the

Boyd Rothwell; Bill Thompson; * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Wildlife Farms II, LLC, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 No. 08-2004

___________

In re: Tommy F. Robinson; Carolyn *

Robinson, *

*

Debtors, *

---------- *

*

Tommy F. Robinson, Carolyn *

Robinson, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. *
*

Wildlife Farms II, LLC, also known as *

Mallard Pointe Lodge and Reserve *

LLC; Bill Thompson; Boyd Rothwell, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 No. 08-2005

___________

In re: Tommy F. Robinson, *

*

Debtor, *

---------- *

*

Tommy F. Robinson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Wildlife Farms II, LLC; Bill Thompson; *

Boyd Rothwell, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2009

Filed: August 25, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

-2-
PER CURIAM.

Tommy Robinson and Carolyn Robinson appeal an order of the district court

(1) holding Tommy Robinson in criminal contempt of a bankruptcy court order and

imposing on him a 60-day sentence of incarceration (suspended pending this appeal),

a $5,000 fine, and awards of attorney’s fees and costs, plus other expenses; and

(2) affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of a discharge in bankruptcy for each of

them. Upon careful review, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

We first conclude that Tommy Robinson was improperly held in criminal

contempt of court for violating a bankruptcy court order that enjoined him from taking

“any actions to interfere in any way with the administration of these jointly

administered bankruptcies,” because the bankruptcy court’s order was neither

sufficiently specific to be enforceable, nor clear and unambiguous, see C.H. Robinson

Co. v. Medco, Inc. (In re Medlock), 406 F.3d 1066, 1071 (8th Cir. 2005) (individual

may not be held in contempt for violating order unless order is sufficiently specific

to be enforceable); Imageware, Inc. v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, 219 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir.

2000) (to support finding of contempt, order in question must be clear and

unambiguous); and thus it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that he

knowingly and willfully violated the bankruptcy court’s order when he filed a separate

state-court action, much less when he sought permission from the bankruptcy court

to file other lawsuits, see Wright v. Nichols, 80 F.3d 1248, 1250 (8th Cir. 1996)

(criminal contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that defendant committed

knowing and willful violation of prior court order); see also Int’l Union, United Mine

Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 826 (1994) (criminal contempt is crime in

ordinary sense, and criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not

been afforded protections that Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings). 

We therefore conclude that the district court erred in imposing against Tommy

Robinson the punitive 60-day sentence and the $5,000 fine.

-3-
We further conclude, however, that the awards against Tommy Robinson of

attorney’s fees and costs, plus other expenses, were appropriate. See Jake’s, Ltd. v.

City of Coates, 356 F.3d 896, 899-904 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding that district court

erred by imposing what was essentially criminal contempt sanction, but affirming

contempt orders to extent they required payment of compensatory damages); Chicago

Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 505 (8th Cir. 2000) (civil

contempt may be employed to compensate complainant for losses sustained); see also

Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 801 (1987) (while court has

authority to initiate prosecution for criminal contempt, exercise of that authority must

be restrained by principle that court should use only least possible power needed to

achieve end proposed; court should use criminal sanctions only if civil remedy is

deemed inadequate).

Finally, as to the denial of discharges, we conclude that the bankruptcy court

did not clearly err in finding that the Robinsons each acted knowingly and

fraudulently in providing inaccurate information on their bankruptcy schedules. See

Williamson v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 828 F.2d 249, 251-52 (4th Cir. 1987) (in

affirming denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), reviewing for clear

error bankruptcy court’s finding that debtor knowingly and fraudulently made false

oaths in connection with bankruptcy; explaining that, because determination of

fraudulent intent depends largely upon assessment of debtor’s credibility and

demeanor, deference to bankruptcy court is particularly appropriate). 

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s finding that Tommy Robinson was

in criminal contempt of court, we vacate the 60-day sentence and the $5,000 fine, and

we affirm the district court’s order in all other respects. 

______________________________

-4-