The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed the appeal of Charles Nicholas Griffith regarding a finding of criminal contempt due to his failure to make mortgage and tax payments on the marital residence. Griffith contended that the trial court did not specify a deadline for these payments and that he was unable to pay when the debts were due. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Griffith had the ability to pay the debts.
The background of the case involves a lengthy domestic relations dispute between Charles and Jessica Lynn Griffith, who were married in 1966 and had three children. Throughout their marriage, they accumulated significant real estate and debt, leading to a complex legal battle following the filing of their divorce complaint in 2001. The trial court's May 29, 2003 Amended Final Decree granted Jessica a divorce on grounds of adultery and divided their extensive marital property and debts, assigning values to both parties’ holdings.
The trial court had previously found Griffith guilty of criminal contempt for failing to comply with a court order from March 12, 2002, which mandated the payment of property taxes and the mortgage associated with their family home. However, the appellate court found that the trial court's finding was not supported by adequate evidence regarding Griffith's ability to pay, leading to the reversal and remand of the case.
Mr. Griffith was found in willful criminal contempt for failing to pay property taxes and mortgage payments as ordered by the Court on March 12, 2002. The Court determined he had the financial means to comply but did not make a payment plan. As punishment, Mr. Griffith was fined $50 and could face incarceration in Williamson County jail, pending the outcome of any appeal. A bond for the appeal was set at $1,000. Mr. Griffith's appeal focuses on two claims: the absence of a specific compliance deadline in the order and insufficient proof of his ability to pay at the required time. Additionally, attorney Michael W. Binkley filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Jessica Lynn Griffith, citing the complexities of the divorce case that was tried over three days and resulted in an Amended Final Decree of Divorce on May 29, 2003. Following Mr. Griffith's bankruptcy filing on September 12, 2003, Binkley and Jessica Lynn Griffith retained Robert J. Mendes to represent their interests as creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings. A settlement agreement was reached and approved by the Federal Bankruptcy Court, with documentation included in the affidavit.
Section 6(d) of the settlement agreement restricts Ms. Griffith and Binkley from participating substantively in the Divorce Case Appeal, specifically prohibiting them from taking a position on the existing finding of contempt. They are not required to take any affirmative action regarding this contempt finding or the appeal itself. Following consultations, it was determined that Ms. Griffith would breach the settlement agreement if she filed a responsive brief, leading to a mutual decision for Binkley to withdraw as her attorney in the appeal. Ms. Griffith acknowledges her obligations under the settlement and the implications of Binkley’s withdrawal. Counsel for Mr. Griffith is aware of and agrees to Binkley’s withdrawal based on the settlement agreement approved in bankruptcy court. The appeal is viewed as justiciable due to the nature of criminal contempt, which involves the court's authority, despite the lack of an advocate for Ms. Griffith’s position. The trial court previously ordered Mr. Griffith to cover expenses related to the family home, yet Ms. Griffith filed a petition for contempt citing his failure to pay property taxes and mortgage debts.
Mr. Griffith's appeal claiming the Order lacked a specific compliance deadline is rejected, as he was aware of the mortgage and property tax due dates. The appeal's resolution hinges on the marital property valuation from the May 29, 2003 Final Divorce Decree, which indicates a combined value of $1,714,735 in net real property assets. However, the gross value of the 57 real estate parcels is $4,649,200, with $2,934,465 in mortgage debt. Mr. Griffith's testimony revealed he faced more mortgage expenses than income and struggled with a depressed real estate market, leaving him financially constrained. The court noted that Mr. Griffith had ample time to plan for the payments and could have sought court permission to sell property or request refinancing from Ms. Griffith but failed to take such actions. The court emphasized that criminal contempt is intended to uphold the law's authority, requiring proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Griffith diverted funds or had the ability to pay, leading to the reversal of the trial court's judgment on criminal contempt. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with costs assigned to the Appellee.
