Husband Jailed 28 Days For Violating Order of Protection in Tennessee Divorce

Tennessee law case summary on contempt for violation of order of protection in family law from the Court of Appeals.

Maria Beth Reynolds v. William Reynolds – Tennessee order of protection, sentencing for contempt

Maria and William Reynolds were married in 2009, and subsequently were in the process of a divorce.  In 2012, the wife was granted an order of protection, and this order was extended in 2013.  The order directed the husband to stay away from the wife, and not have any contact, direct or indirect.  The wife filed a petition to hold the husband in criminal contempt.  She alleged that he had violated the order six times.  She alleged that he had e-mailed her three times, and sent a message from a blocked number on one occasion.  In addition, she alleged that he was near the entrance of her apartment building, blocked her car with his car, and attempted to have a conversation with her.

The court held a hearing, at which it heard testimony from the wife, a police officer, and a resident of the wife’s apartment complex.  The husband didn’t testify, but he had planned to have his mother testify.

The wife admitted that she had access to the husband’s e-mail account, since he had never changed his password.  She admitted that she had accessed this account and even forwarded “really scary” unsent e-mails from this account to her mother.  But she denied sending the e-mails in question.

The wife, the neighbor, and the police officer testified as to the husband being present at her apartment and blocking her car.

Witnesses were excluded from the courtroom, and ordered not to have contact with other witnesses.  Since the mother was observed violating this order, she was not permitted to testify.

After the hearing, the trial court found the husband in criminal contempt for willfully committing six violations.  He was sentenced to 28 consecutive days in jail.  He then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued that there was a reasonable doubt as to the e-mails, because the wife testified that she “could have” sent them herself.   But the wife was adamant that she had not done so, and the trial court found that her testimony was credible.  The appeals court held that that was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeals court also carefully examined the evidence regarding the phone message and the husband’s appearance at the apartment building, and held that these charges were also proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court then went on to carefully consider the sentence that had been imposed.  It looked at the severity of the sentence, and also the fact that consecutive sentences had been imposed for the individual violations.  The appeals court noted that the maximum sentence for the six violations could have been up to sixty days in jail, and that the actual sentence of 28 days was well within the lower court’s discretion.

Finally, the appeals court looked at the exclusion of the mother’s testimony.   It noted that an order not to speak with other witnesses had been clearly explained to all of the witnesses before the trial, but the mother had violated it.  The trial court also looked at the potential importance of the mother’s testimony before dealing with the appropriate sanction for the violation.  Once again, the appeals court concluded that the trial court had acted within its discretion.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt conviction.  It assessed the costs of appeal against the husband, but denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

No. M2013-01912-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Domestic Violence & Tennessee Divorce Law | Get Safe Now.