Husband Not in Contempt for Violating Agreement, But Liable for Attorney Fees

Tennessee case summary on divorce settlement enforcement & attorney’s fees.

The husband and wife in this Tennessee case were married in 1993 and had one child. They were divorced in 2013 after agreeing to a marital dissolution agreement that was adopted into the final decree.

In 2014, the wife filed a petition asking the husband to be held in civil contempt for various alleged violations of the agreement. Some of the disputes were resolved before trial, but two remained. The wife alleged that the husband had concealed two paychecks earned during the marriage, and that he had failed to divide a non-retirement investment account as required by the agreement.

The agreement had specified a certain “IRA account” and specified the last four digits of the account number.

The wife also requested attorney’s fees.

A trial was held, and the court ruled in the wife’s favor on all of the remaining issues. The trial court found that the account contained both retirement and non-retirement funds, even though it was listed as a retirement asset and identified as an IRA. The court ruled that the parties had intended to divide all of it, including both the retirement and non-retirement portions, but that the husband had transferred only from the retirement portion. The trial court also found the husband in contempt for withholding the paychecks. The trial court also denied the husband’s motion to reduce his child support obligation.

The husband was ordered incarcerated until he paid almost $9,000 plus interest, which represented half of the non-retirement funds, plus over $8,000, which represented half of the paychecks.

The court also awarded over $28,000 in attorney fees, finding that they were reasonable and necessary to ensure the husband’s compliance with the agreement.

The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. He argued that the contempt finding was erroneous, that child support should have been modified, and that the award of attorney’s fees was improper.

The appeals court turned first to the contempt issue. It noted that for a finding of contempt, the order in question must be clear, specific, and unambiguous. As to the investment account, the appeals court ruled in the husband’s favor on this point.

The accounts in question had both an “investor number” and an “account number,” and the wife testified that she had used the investor number since it would adequately identify all of the accounts. The husband testified that this investor number actually covered twelve accounts, both retirement and non-retirement.

The trial court had ruled that the agreement was “clear, specific, and unambiguous,” but the appeals court disagreed. It noted that litigants are entitled to rely on the clear language of orders. Since the account in question was a non-retirement account, and its account number did not end in the four digits specified in the order, even though the “investor number” did, the appeals court concluded that the description was not specific enough to support a finding of contempt. Therefore, the appeals court reversed this portion of the lower court’s order.

The husband did not fare as well when it came to the undisclosed paychecks. The court examined the evidence, and held that the determination of whether there had been a violation was made properly by the lower court, since the lower court had found the husband’s testimony not to be credible. For that reason, it affirmed this portion of the order.

After affirming the child support order, the appeals court turned to the issue of attorney’s fees. It noted that the award of attorney fees is limited to the parameters set out in the contract between the parties, subject to the normal rules of construing contracts.

In this case, the agreement called for reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in enforcing the contract. The appeals court noted that the plain meaning of this provision was that the wife was entitled to reasonable attorney fees for an action to force the husband to comply with the agreement. The appeals court reviewed the lower court’s reasoning and stated that it fully agreed with it.

And since the appeals court found that it was reasonable for the wife to oppose the appeal, it held that she would be entitled to attorney’s fees for the appeal. It remanded the case for the lower court to determine the amount.

No. M2016-00963-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.