Court Opinion

ID: 9948720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 19:11:42.261722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.610065
License: Public Domain

03/07/2024
                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                                 AT JACKSON
                                       February 1, 2024 Session1

          KISHA DEAN TREZEVANT v. STANLEY H. TREZEVANT, III

                        Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County
                          No. CT-003516-13 Mary L. Wagner, Judge
                           ___________________________________

                                 No. W2023-00682-COA-R3-CV
                             ___________________________________

In this post-divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s order holding him in
criminal contempt. Due to the deficiencies in Husband’s brief, we do not reach the
substantive issues. Appeal dismissed.

                    Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed.

KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. STEVEN STAFFORD,
P.J., W.S., and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., joined.

Stevan L. Black and Vickie Hardy Jones, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Stanley
H. Trezevant, III.

Mitchell D. Moskovitz and Adam N. Cohen, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Kisha
Dean Trezevant.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION2

                                              I. Background

          This is the third appeal in this divorce case that has been pending for over ten years.
1
    Oral argument in this case was heard at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law.
2
    Rule 10 of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

          This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse
          or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion
          would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall
          be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be
          cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
See Trezevant v. Trezevant, No. W2021-01153-COA-R3-CV, 2024 WL 352896 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Jan. 31, 2024) (“Trezevant II”); Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 2018) (“Trezevant I”). In the interest of judicial economy, we will discuss only those
facts and proceedings that are relevant to this appeal.

        Appellant Stanley Trezevant (“Husband”) and Appellee Kisha Trezevant (“Wife”)
were married in September 1990. Trezevant I, 568 S.W.3d at 603. In August 2013, Wife
filed a complaint for divorce in the Shelby County Circuit Court (“trial court”). Id. On
March 1, 2017, the trial court entered the final decree of divorce, which was appealed to
this Court. Id. at 604. In Trezevant I, this Court reviewed the trial court’s: (1)
identification, classification, valuation, and division of marital property; (2) conclusion that
Husband dissipated marital assets during the divorce; and (3) conclusion that Husband
should have been held in criminal contempt and sentenced to jail for same. On appeal, we
affirmed the trial court’s identification and classification of marital property and its
conclusion that Husband dissipated marital assets. Id. at 641. We also affirmed the trial
court’s order holding Husband in criminal contempt. Id. We vacated the trial court’s
valuation and division of marital property as well as Wife’s alimony awards and remanded
the case to the trial court. Id.

       Following this Court’s remand, on January 5, 2021, the trial court entered its
findings of facts and conclusions of law. See Trezevant II, 2024 WL 352896, at *4.
Therein, the trial court made extensive findings of fact before dividing the marital estate
between the parties. Part of the trial court’s division included awarding Wife the “Cayman
Island Properties” and the bank accounts associated with those properties. Pertinent to this
appeal, the trial court ordered:

       5. With regards to bank accounts associated with the Cayman Island
       [P]roperties, Husband shall not close the accounts, but instead shall add Wife
       as an owner to said account within fifteen (15) days of this Order. Husband
       shall not make any further withdrawals from the bank accounts associated
       with these properties. Thereafter, Wife, as an owner, shall have the authority
       to remove Husband from said bank accounts. Husband shall ensure that
       Seven Mile Beach Account ending in #10621 has a balance of at least
       $183,350.12. If it does not, Husband shall provide an accounting, including
       supporting documentation, of all transactions within this account since
       August 31, 2020. Said accounting shall be provided within thirty (30) days
       of this Order. Any withdrawals for expenses other than reasonable and
       necessary business expenses shall be reimbursed to Wife by Husband within
       forty-five (45) days of this Order.

Following entry of the January 5, 2021 order, both parties filed motions to alter or amend.
On September 1, 2021, the trial court entered an order on the respective motions. On
December 15, 2021, the trial court entered its amended findings of facts and conclusions
                                          -2-
of law that modified a portion of its previous order that is unrelated to this appeal.

        On September 30, 2021, Wife filed a petition for mandatory injunctive relief and
for civil and criminal contempt (“Original Contempt Petition”). Therein, Wife alleged that
Husband falsely claimed that he sold the Cayman Island Properties, which had been
awarded to Wife. Wife asked the trial court to enjoin Husband from transferring, selling,
or otherwise encumbering the properties that were awarded to her. To the extent Husband
completed any transfers of the Cayman Island Properties, Wife asserted that Husband acted
in knowing and willful violation of the January 5, 2021 findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Thus, Wife asked the trial court to hold Husband in willful civil and criminal contempt
of that order.

     On February 3, 2022, Wife filed an amended petition for civil and criminal contempt
(“Amended Contempt Petition”). Therein, Wife alleged, in pertinent part:

       17. Husband has flagrantly violated each and every substantive tenant of
       Paragraph five (5) of the Ordering Section [of the January 5, 2021 findings
       of fact and conclusions of law]. To wit:

              A. Husband has failed and refused to add Wife as an owner to
              any of the Cayman Island bank accounts; this includes Cayman
              National Bank Account ending #10621 . . . ;

              B. Husband has closed the Cayman National Bank Account
              ending in #10621;

              C. Husband has made withdrawals from Cayman National
              Bank Account ending in #10621. . . ;

              D. Since Account #10621 has been closed by Husband in
              violation of [the trial court’s order]; said account has no
              balance, which is obviously less than $183,350.12. Husband
              has failed and refused to provide an accounting, including
              supporting documentation, of all transactions within this
              account since August 31, 2020. Said accounting was to have
              been provided within thirty (30) days of January 5, 2021.

              E. Husband has also failed and refused to reimburse Wife for
              at least $183,350.12. He has also failed to reimburse Wife for
              any other non-business expenses from [this] Account within
              forty-five (45) days of [the] Order. In fact, by failing and
              refusing to provide Wife with the statements and the full
              accounting, Husband has deprived Wife entirely of the ability
                                           -3-
              to determine what additional reimbursements are owed.

(Emphasis in original). Wife alleged these actions constituted a knowing and willful
violation of the trial court’s January 5, 2021 findings of fact and conclusions of law and
asked the trial court to hold Husband in willful civil and criminal contempt.

        On March 14, 2022, Husband filed a motion to bifurcate and for more definite
statement asking Wife to clarify which counts in her petitions were criminal and which
counts were civil. On April 1, 2022, Wife filed a response to Husband’s motion and
clarified that she was proceeding with criminal contempt charges against him for his: (1)
failure to add Wife’s name to account #10621; (2) closing of account #10621; and (3) non-
business withdrawals from account #10621. On April 6, 2022, the trial court heard
Husband’s motion for a more definite statement. During that hearing, Husband’s counsel
stated that Wife’s response set forth how she was “going to proceed . . . in the way of
criminal contempt, so we now know the answer to our question, so we’re in a position, as
it relates to that issue, to proceed.” On April 14, 2022, Husband filed an answer to the
Amended Contempt Petition.

       On November 3, 2022, the trial court entered a consent order setting for trial, inter
alia, Wife’s Original and Amended Contempt Petitions. In this order, the trial court found
that Husband, “in lieu of a formal arraignment, enter[ed] a plea of not guilty and waive[d]
a formal reading of the charges against him.”

       Three days before trial, Husband filed an amended and supplemental answer to the
Amended Contempt Petition. On March 20, 2023, the trial court heard Wife’s criminal
contempt petitions. After close of Wife’s proof, Husband made an oral motion for
judgment of acquittal arguing that Wife failed to provide proper notice of the charges
against him in the petitions for contempt. Husband also argued that Wife failed to initiate
her contempt claims within the statute of limitations. On March 21, 2023, Husband filed
a written motion for judgment of acquittal arguing these same issues.

       On April 11, 2023, the trial court entered its order on Wife’s criminal contempt
petitions. Relevant here, the trial court found that the Amended Contempt Petition was not
barred by the statute of limitations because it related back to her Original Contempt
Petition. The trial court also found that Husband not only received sufficient notice of the
charges against him, but he knowingly waived his right to contest them. As to the criminal
contempt charges, the trial court found Husband in contempt for: (1) failing to add Wife’s
name to Cayman National Bank Account #10621; (2) closing Cayman National Bank
Account #10621; and (3) making three withdrawals from Cayman National Bank Account
#10621. Based on the foregoing, the trial court sentenced Husband to forty (40)
consecutive days of incarceration. The trial court stayed the sentence pending this appeal,
after Husband posted a $40,000.00 cash bond and surrendered his passport. Husband filed
a timely appeal.
                                             -4-
                                          II. Issues

       Husband raises four issues for review, as stated in his brief:

   1. Whether the trial court erred in finding Husband guilty of criminal contempt
      for his alleged failure to add Wife’s name to and closing Cayman National
      Bank account #10621 in the name of Seven Mile Beach Hotel Development
      Corp., Ltd.?

   2. Whether the trial court erred in finding Husband guilty of criminal contempt
      for withdrawing the sum of $194,428.04 from Cayman National Bank
      account #10621 on January 22, 2021?

   3. Whether the trial court erred in finding Husband guilty of criminal contempt
      for withdrawing the sum of $36,606.50 from Cayman National Bank account
      #10621 on January 28, 2021?

   4. Whether the trial court erred in finding Husband guilty of criminal contempt
      for withdrawing the sum of $4,202.40 from Cayman National Bank account
      #10621 on January 22, 2021?

Wife raises the additional issue: “Is there a statute of limitations to act upon a domestic
relations decree?”

                                       III. Discussion

       Due to deficiencies in Husband’s brief, we decline to address the substantive legal
issues raised. The contents of appellate briefs are governed by Rule 27 of the Tennessee
Rules of Appellate Procedure. According to the rule, the appellant’s initial brief shall
contain “[a] statement of the issues presented for review . . . .” Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(4).
The statement of the issues is vitally important to the appeal as it provides this Court with
the questions that we are asked to answer on review. The statement of the issues is also
significant because our “[a]ppellate review is generally limited” to those issues listed in it.
Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 334 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b)).
Indeed, “[c]ourts have consistently held that . . . [a]n issue not included [in the statement
of the issues] is not properly before the Court of Appeals.” Hawkins v. Hart, 86 S.W.3d
522, 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Accordingly, appellants should endeavor to frame each
issue “as specifically as the nature of the error will permit,” Hodge, 382 S.W.3d at 335
(citing Fahey v. Eldridge, 46 S.W.3d 138, 143-44 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Williams, 914
S.W.2d 940, 948 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)), as this Court is not required to “search[] for
hidden questions” in appellants’ briefs. Hodge, 382 S.W.3d at 334 (citing Bryan A.

                                             -5-
Garner, Garner on Language and Writing 115 (2009); Robert L. Stern, Appellate Practice
in the United States § 10.9, at 263 (2d ed.1989)).

        As framed by Husband, the gravamen of his stated issues is whether the trial court
erred in finding him guilty of criminal contempt for his alleged actions concerning Cayman
National Bank account #10621. Specifically, Husband asserts that the trial court erred in
finding him guilty of criminal contempt for: (1) failing to add Wife to the account; (2)
transferring $194,428.04, $36,606.50, and $4,202.40 from the account; and (3) closing the
account. In other words, Husband’s issues concern whether there was sufficient evidence
to support the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt based on the above actions. Despite
limiting his stated issues in his brief to the foregoing, Husband only fleetingly addresses
whether the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that he should be held in criminal
contempt.3 Indeed, under the argument section of his initial brief, Husband represents that
“[t]his appeal raises issues pertaining to the statute of limitations and defects in the
charging instrument, all of which are questions of law to be reviewed de novo with no
presumption of correctness.” In his reply brief, Husband clarifies that “[t]here is no issue
pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence in this criminal contempt matter. Rather,
Husband’s appeal presents narrow issues of law.” Importantly, in his statement of the
issues, Husband fails to assert any issue concerning: (1) a specific question of law; (2) a
statute of limitations; or (3) a defect in a charging instrument.

      Turning to the argument section of Husband’s brief, he structures his argument as
follows:

        I. The trial court erred in finding Husband guilty of criminal contempt for
        his alleged failure to add Wife’s name to and closing Cayman National Bank
        account #10621 in the name of Seven Mile Beach Hotel Development Corp.,
        Ltd.

                A. The trial court erroneously held that the charge raised for
                   the first time in Wife’s February 3, 2022 Amended Petition
                   “related back” to the date of the filing of Wife’s September
                   30, 2021 Petition.

                B. The one[-]year statute of limitations applies to this
                   misdemeanor prosecution.

                C. The prosecution against Husband was not commenced
                   before the running of the one[-]year statute of limitations.

3
 On this Court’s review, Husband’s only argument regarding the evidence before the trial court concerns
his fourth issue, i.e., whether he withdrew $4,202.40. In his initial brief, Husband merely states “[t]here
was no such proof” that Husband withdrew such amount from the account.
                                                   -6-
                D. The statute of limitations was not tolled.

                E. The statute of limitations was not waived.

                F. The charging instrument did not provide proper notice of
                   the charge.

                        1. Wife’s February 3, 2022 Amended Petition
                           failed to allege all facts necessary to provide
                           proper notice to Husband.

                        2. The January 5, 2021 Ruling was not clear,
                           specific and unambiguous.4

Husband makes substantive arguments under each of the foregoing subsections.

       At oral argument, this Court questioned Husband’s counsel concerning whether the
issues in A-F, supra, were specifically listed in the statement of the issues for this Court’s
review. Husband’s counsel first argued that the stated issues broadly asserted that the trial
court erred, but ultimately admitted that Husband presented the A-F issues only in the
subsections of the body of his argument. In short, Husband failed to designate the issues
in A-F in his statement of the issues.

       On this Court’s review, Husband’s stated issues are not simply broad assertions that
the trial court erred. Rather, as discussed supra, they concern whether the evidence
supported a finding of criminal contempt—an issue that Husband intentionally did not
address in his brief. Accordingly, the issues raised in the statement of the issues are not
before this Court. Furthermore, it is clear that the A-F issues are not merely sub-arguments
of Husband’s stated evidentiary issues. Instead, Husband presents distinct arguments
focused on narrow issues of law rather than the sufficiency of evidence presented.
Longstanding precedent provides that “an issue may be deemed waived when it is argued
in the brief but is not designated as an issue in accordance with [Tennessee Rule of
Appellate Procedure] 27(a)(4).” Hodge, 382 S.W.3d at 335. Because Husband failed to
designate the A-F issues in his statement of the issues, he has waived them.

       Although this Court may, for good cause, suspend the requirements or provisions of
any of our appellate rules, see Tenn. R. App. P. 2, we decline to do so. Having failed to
include in his statement of the issues whether: (1) the charges raised in the Amended
Contempt Petition related back to the Original Contempt Petition; (2) a one-year statute of

4
  Husband repeats this structure with his three remaining issues. However, we note that Husband argued
(F)(2) only under his first issue concerning his alleged failure to add Wife’s name to the bank account.
                                                 -7-
limitations applied to Wife’s criminal contempt claims; (3) prosecution against Husband
commenced within the applicable statute of limitations; (4) the applicable statute of
limitations was tolled or waived; (5) the charging instrument provided Husband with
proper notice of the charges against him; and (6) the trial court’s January 5, 2021 order was
clear, specific, and unambiguous, Husband has waived these issues. The waiver of
Husband’s issues negates our need to address Wife’s sole issue, and we pretermit same.5
As such, there is nothing for this Court to review, and the appeal is dismissed. Bean v.
Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

                                             IV. Conclusion

       For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Costs of the appeal are assessed
to the Appellant, Stanley H. Trezevant, III, for all of which execution may issue if
necessary.

                                                               s/ Kenny Armstrong
                                                            KENNY ARMSTRONG, JUDGE

5
  For completeness, we note that Wife raises as an issue whether there is a statute of limitations to act on a
domestic relations decree. While an appellee may present issues that were not presented by the appellant,
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(b) “limits those issues to ones in which [the appellee] is seeking
‘relief from the judgment’” of the trial court. Hodge, 382 S.W.3d at 336; Tenn. R. App. P. 27(b); see also
In re Estate of Ross, No. M2013-02218-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 2999576, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30,
2014) (internal citations omitted) (“Moreover, ‘a litigant may not appeal from a judgment, order[,] or decree
in his favor’ absent an error therein prejudicial to him.”). Here, the trial court ruled in Wife’s favor and she
asks this Court to affirm the trial court’s ruling in all respects; thus, she has not been prejudiced and cannot
seek relief from the trial court’s order. Accordingly, this issue is not before us.
                                                     -8-