Opinion ID: 1060639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable Statutory Provisions for Contempt

Text: An act of contempt is a wilful or intentional act that offends the court and its administration of justice. Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-9-102; see Graham v. Williamson, 128 Tenn. 720, 164 S.W. 781, 782 (1914). Traditionally, contempt has been classified as civil or criminal depending upon the action taken by the court to address the contempt. Title 29, Chapter 9 of the Tennessee Code on Remedies and Special Proceedings provides the grounds for contempt and the remedies available to the court. Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-9-102-104. Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-9-102 provides: The power of the several courts to issue attachments, and inflict punishments for contempts of court, shall not be construed to extend to any except the following cases: (1) The willful misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice. (2) The willful misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts, in their official transactions. (3) The willful disobedience or resistance of any officer of the said courts, party, juror, witness, or any other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of said courts. (4) Abuse of, or unlawful interference with, the process or proceedings of the court. (5) Willfully conversing with jurors in relation to the merits of the cause in the trial of which they are engaged, or otherwise tampering with them. (6) Any other act or omission declared a contempt by law. Thus, to find contempt under this statute, a court must find the misbehavior, disobedience, resistance, or interference to be wilful. For the court to find that Ahern's failure to pay alimony and child support was contemptuous, the court first must determine that Ahern had the ability to pay at the time the support was due and then determine that the failure to pay was wilful. After a finding of contempt, courts have several remedies available depending upon the facts of the case. A court can imprison an individual to compel performance of a court order. This is typically referred to as civil contempt. This remedy is available only when the individual has the ability to comply with the order at the time of the contempt hearing. Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-9-104; [7] see also Garrett v. Forest Lawn Memorial Gardens, 588 S.W.2d 309, 315 (Tenn.Ct.App.1979). Thus, with civil contempt, the one in contempt has the keys to the jail and can purge the contempt by complying with the court's order. Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-9-104; Garrett, 588 S.W.2d at 315. In civil contempt, the imprisonment is meted out for the benefit of a party litigant. See Shiflet v. State, 217 Tenn. 690, 693, 400 S.W.2d 542, 543 (1966). A court can also imprison and/or fine an individual simply as punishment for the contempt. This remedy is commonly referred to as criminal contempt. Unless otherwise provided, the circuit, chancery, and appellate courts are limited to imposing a fine of $50.00 and to imprisoning an individual for not more than ten days. Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-9-103. [8] A party who is in criminal contempt cannot be freed by eventual compliance. See Shiflet, 217 Tenn. at 693, 400 S.W.2d at 543. In addition to the contempt provisions in Title 29, the legislature has provided a specific statute to address the situation in which an obligor fails to comply with a child support order. Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-104 states: (a) Any person, ordered to provide support and maintenance for a minor child or children, who fails to comply with the order or decree, may, in the discretion of the court, be punished by imprisonment in the county workhouse or county jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months. (b) No arrest warrant shall issue for the violation of any court order of support if such violation occurred during a period of time in which the obligor was incarcerated in any penal institution and was otherwise unable to comply with the order. Pierotti asked the trial court to find Ahern in both civil and criminal contempt pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 16-1-103, 29-9-101-106. The trial court found that Ahern had the ability to meet his financial obligations at all times since the entry of the Final Decree. The court found that Ahern's failure to pay was deliberate, calculated and willful because Ahern had the ability to pay alimony and child support. The court concluded that Ahern was guilty of criminal contempt. The trial court's order cited Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-9-102(3) as the basis for the contempt convictions but did not cite the specific sentencing provisions upon which it relied. As to the failure to pay child support, the trial court sentenced Ahern to 180 days, or six months, in jail. Under Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-9-102(3), -103, the trial court was without authority to issue such a sentence. Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-9-103 specifically limits circuit courts to a maximum of a $50 fine and ten days in jail. While Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-104 does provide for a penalty of up to six months in jail for failure to pay child support, that provision was neither relied upon by Pierotti nor cited by the trial court in its ruling. Although the Court of Appeals correctly noted that Ahern did not appeal the length of his sentences, his double jeopardy claim has the potential to invalidate both the sentence imposed for failure to pay child support and the sentence imposed for failure to pay alimony.