Ex In Contempt for Not Paying Attorney Fees, But Cannot be Jailed

Tennessee case summary on contempt for non-payment of attorney’s fees after divorce.

Andrea Renae Hopwood v. Corey Daniel Hopwood

The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2015.  The alimony award in that case was the subject of an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  While that appeal was pending, the wife brought a petition for civil contempt against the husband.  The trial court ruled that the husband had failed to make certain required payments.  It ordered the husband jailed until he made a purge payment of $2,300 in past-due support, plus $500 attorney fees.  The husband was jailed, but was released when he paid the $2,800.

The wife brought a second contempt case, but this was dismissed, since the court held that the underlying divorce case was no longer pending.  She renewed this motion, and the lower court issued an order shortly after the appeal was decided.

The court found that the husband had failed to execute a quit claim deed, and that he had failed to pay $2,800 in attorney’s fees, $3,840 in credit card bills, and $615 in medical bills.

The trial court found that the husband had a lack of credibility, and that he had an ability to pay.  It ordered that he pay over $8,000 or be jailed until he purged the contempt.  After various post-trial litigation, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court noted that trial courts have contempt power, provided the underlying order is lawful.  The violation must be clear, specific, and unambiguous, and the violation must be willful.

The father admitted that he violated the order to make the payments.  But he argued that this was not willful because he did not have the ability to comply.

The appeals court next noted that jailing for civil contempt is available only when the party has the ability to comply at the time of hearing.

In this case, the trial court had appointed a lawyer due to the husband’s indigency.  However, the appeals court noted that the husband had not been found credible, and there was insufficient evidence to dispute that finding.  Therefore, it held that the finding of contempt was proper.

However, the husband fared better with his argument that the remedy was improper.  The trial court had found that the husband was indigent, but also found that the indigency was voluntary.  But even though it was voluntary, the husband was, indeed, unable to meet the obligation.  Therefore, jailing him for civil contempt was not a proper remedy in the case.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling in part, but reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings.

No. M2016-01752-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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