Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
OCTOBER 13, 2010 Session JONI LYNN JENNINGS v. MARK ALLAN JENNINGS
Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-06-1240-II Arnold Goldin, Chancellor

No. W2009-02504-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 8, 2010

After Husband and Wife filed cross petitions for orders of protection, they entered Consent Injunctions restricting communications between them. Subsequently, the parties filed competing petitions for contempt, alleging violations of the Consent Injunctions. On appeal, Husband argues that the Consent Injunctions were improperly entered, and therefore, that the trial court's criminal contempt conviction, which was based upon violations of such injunctions, cannot stand. We affirm the decision of the chancery court, and finding the appeal frivolous, we remand for a determination of damages.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded A LAN E. H IGHERS, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D AVID R. F ARMER, J., and H OLLY M. K IRBY, J., joined. Mark Allan Jennings, Olive Branch, MS, pro se, (filed initial Appellant's Brief); James E. Thomas, Memphis, TN, attorney for the appellant, (filed Reply Brief of Appellant) Stephen F. Libby, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Joni Lynn Jennings

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 I. F ACTS & P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY

Joni Lynn Jennings ("Wife") and Mark Allan Jennings ("Husband") divorced in 2007, and Wife was named primary residential parent of the parties' minor child. Thereafter, the parties filed cross petitions for orders of protection.2 In May 2009, the parties entered a document styled "Consent Injunctions" in the Shelby County Chancery Court, which provided in relevant part: In an effort to resolve [the petitions for orders of protection] without further litigation, the parties agree and the Court enters an injunction as follows: .... Each party is enjoined from telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the other, either directly or indirectly, except as provided herein. .... All future contact between the parties shall be limited to emails and any emails between the parties shall solely relate to the parties' minor child. .... If either party violates this Order, that party may be held in contempt of court and punished by incarceration in the Shelby County Jail.

1

Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee states:

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. The petitions are not contained within the record, however, the chancery court's "Consent Injunctions" states that such petitions were filed and that a hearing was scheduled for their resolution.
2

-2-

On August 7, 2009, Wife filed a petition for contempt and scire facias in the chancery court claiming that Husband had violated the Consent Injunctions by sending a July 22, 2009 email which did not relate to the parties' child and which she alleged constituted stalking, in violation of the injunction. Husband filed a counter-complaint for contempt and scire facias against Wife, alleging harassment through phone calls, notes and e-mails, as well as unwelcomed visits. Following a hearing, the chancery court entered an order finding Husband in criminal contempt and dismissing his counter-complaint against Wife. The order provided in part: Based on the evidence introduced in this matter, the Court finds that Defendant Mark Allan Jennings is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal contempt for violation [of the Consent Injunctions] order. Specifically, the Court finds that Defendant Mark Allan sen[t] an email with the following text to Plaintiff on or about July 22, 2009: From: Mark Jennings [ ] Date: July 22, 2009 6:13:44 PM CDT To: Joni Joni [ ] Subject: Spyware Please remove the spyware from your computer. After you do that please change all of your passwords. I got everything I need and don't forget to remove your ad with Mommies in Memphis looking 4 roommates. P.S. It's what you don't say that hurts me and I don't believe you ever will say it. That is why I pray for you. The court sentenced Husband to 10 days imprisonment, suspended, and after finding the parties' child in custody of the paternal grandmother, it modified the Consent Injunctions to prohibit any future contact between the parties unless either party regained custody. Husband appeals.

II.

I SSUES P RESENTED

Husband presents the following issues for review, as we perceive them: 1. Whether the Consent Injunctions were properly entered in the chancery court; and -3-

2.

Whether the trial court erred in finding Husband guilty of criminal contempt.

Additionally, Wife presents the following issue, summarized as follows: 3. Whether Wife should be awarded attorney fees for frivolous appeal.

For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court, we award Wife her attorney fees based upon a frivolous appeal, and we remand for a determination of damages in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122.

III.

D ISCUSSION

A. Entry of Consent Injunctions On appeal, Husband argues that the Consent Injunctions order, the violation of which was the basis of Husband's criminal contempt conviction, was entered in error, and therefore, that his criminal contempt conviction cannot stand. He states that Wife's counsel "unlawfully prepared the Consent Injunctions" and entered it in the "wrong jurisdictional court"

Download joni_lynn_jennings_v_mark_allan_jennings_opn.pdf

Tennessee Law