Cecelia Hutcheson v. Andrew W. Hutcheson

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedFebruary 22, 2002
DocketM2000-02340-COA-R3-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Cecelia Hutcheson v. Andrew W. Hutcheson (Cecelia Hutcheson v. Andrew W. Hutcheson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cecelia Hutcheson v. Andrew W. Hutcheson, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 22, 2002

CECELIA G. HUTCHESON v. ANDREW W. HUTCHESON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County No. 19146-C Arthur E. McClellan, Judge

No. M2000-02340-COA-R3-CV - Filed November 26, 2002

On August 18, 2000, Appellant was held to be in civil contempt of court for failure to pay alimony and failure to deliver property to his former wife in compliance with the previous divorce judgment in the case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

WILLIAM B. CAIN , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BEN H. CANTRELL , P.J., and PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., joined.

Andrew W. Hutcheson, Demorest, Georgia, Pro Se.

Mark Walker, Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Cecelia G. Hutcheson.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Cecelia G. Hutcheson (Plaintiff/Appellee) and Andrew W. Hutcheson (Defendant/Appellant) were divorced by judgment of the Circuit Court of Sumner County on December 1, 1999. The judgment required weekly alimony payments by Andrew W. Hutcheson beginning November 17, 1999 and continuing each week thereafter until the death or remarriage of Cecelia G. Hutcheson. On June 13, 2000, Appellee filed her Petition seeking to hold Appellant in contempt of court for failure to make alimony payments through May 18, 2000. The prayers for relief included a prayer that the Appellant be held in criminal contempt of court and further, “[t]hat the Court award the Petitioner a judgment for the unpaid alimony in the amount owing at the time of the hearing, but not less than $1200.00 which represents what is owing at the time of the filing of this Petition.” Counsel

1 Court of Appeals Rule 10: This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse o r 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 OPIN ION," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reaso n in a sub sequent unre lated case. representing Andrew W. Hutcheson was allowed to withdraw, and on July 24, 2000, counsel for Appellee filed a Motion for default judgment and to set the case for hearing.

On August 14, 2000, Appellant filed a Request for the appointment of legal counsel to represent him in the criminal contempt proceeding, which application was, on that same date, denied by the trial court. Appellant also filed a Motion to continue the hearing on default judgment from its scheduled August 18, 2000 date claiming illness, which motion was, on that same date, denied by the trial court. The case was heard by the trial court on August 18, 2000 with judgment entered on August 24, 2000, holding:

This cause came on to be heard on the 18th day of August, 2000, before the honorable Arthur E. McClellan, Judge of the Circuit Court for Sumner County, upon the Plaintiff’s Petition for Criminal Contempt and For Respondent to Turn Over Property, the Respondent having been served and failing to file an appropriate response, the Plaintiff having filed a Motion for Default, and the entire record in this cause from all of which the Court finds as follows: That the Respondent has failed to pay alimony to the Plaintiff as previously ordered by this Court and is in arrears in the amount of $2700.00 as of August 18, 2000. That because the Respondent is pro se, the Court finds the Respondent in wilful civil contempt instead of criminal contempt of the prior orders of the Court for failing to abide by the previous orders. That the Respondent shall be sentenced to six (6) months in the Sumner County Jail or until he purges himself of the contempt by paying to the Plaintiff the arrearage amount of $2700.00 in alimony and delivering the property awarded to the Plaintiff in the Final Decree to her attorney’s office located at 606 North Main Street, Goodlettsville, Tennessee. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Respondent is guilty of wilful civil contempt of the prior orders of the Court for failing to abide by the previous orders. That the Respondent shall be sentenced to six (6) months in the Sumner County Jail or until he purges himself of the contempt by paying to the Plaintiff the arrearage amount of $2700.00 in alimony and delivering the property awarded to the Plaintiff in the Final Decree to her attorney’s office located at 606 North Main Street, Goodlettsville, Tennessee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Plaintiff, Cecelia A. Gardner, shall be awarded a judgment against the Respondent, Andrew W. Hutcheson, in the amount of $2700.00 for which execution may issue, if necessary. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the attorney for the Plaintiff, Mark Walker, shall be awarded a judgment against the Respondent in the amount of $750.00, for which execution may issue, if necessary, for his representation of the Plaintiff in this cause. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the costs of this cause are taxed to the Respondent for which execution may issue, if necessary. ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2000.

-2- On September 18, 2000, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal.

The condition of the record on appeal precludes appellate review of the merits of this case. The jurisdiction of the court of appeals is appellate only, and this Court can only consider such matters as were brought to the attention of the trial court and either acted upon or pretermitted by the trial judge. Clement v. Nichols, 209 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1948).

Whatever evidence the trial court acted upon after the hearing of August 18, 2000 that resulted in its final judgment of August 24, 2000, we have no way of determining. The record contains neither a transcription of the evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(b) or a statement of the evidence pursuant to Rule 24(c). In such circumstances, meaningful review of the evidence is not possible, and we have no means of determining where lies the preponderance of the evidence.

When a trial court decides a case without a jury, it’s findings of fact are presumed to be correct unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them. Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d). This court cannot review the facts de novo without an appellate record containing the facts, and therefore, we must assume that the record, had it been preserved, would have contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings. McDonald v. Onoh, 772 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Gotten v. Gotten, 748 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

It is the obligation of Appellant to have an adequate record prepared in order to allow for meaningful review on appeal. State v. Banes, 874 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McDonald v. Onoh
772 S.W.2d 913 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1989)
Gotten v. Gotten
748 S.W.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1987)
Sherrod v. Wix
849 S.W.2d 780 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1992)
State v. Banes
874 S.W.2d 73 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1993)
Irvin v. City of Clarksville
767 S.W.2d 649 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1988)
Clement v. Nichols
209 S.W.2d 23 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cecelia Hutcheson v. Andrew W. Hutcheson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecelia-hutcheson-v-andrew-w-hutcheson-tennctapp-2002.