ÿWPCÉ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ U:H ‚ 0JŠ 0TÔ 0^( 0h† 0rî 0|` 0†Ü 0b 1uò U,g 0d“ U,÷ U>#U*a B‹B)¨DCÑ AMÿa D3`v~“vÓ 0@ä AO$Æs 0D9 D/} B¬˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ >?DAUBECDDEÓ€QRPSyJÚ 3|xS`"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ õÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òAugust€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ }ä XXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€EX€RELà à)ÌROBERT€F.€SMITH,€COMMR.,€DEPT.à à)ÌOF€HIGHWAYS,€FOR€AND€ON€à àà à)ÌBEHALF€OF€SAID€DEPARTMENT,à à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àœó óPetitioner/Appellee,›œà à›à àœò ò)›€€Shelby€Chancery€No.€74742„3€R.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœVS.›à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9507„CH„00161̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|$ ` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌC.€W.€SIMPSON,€a/k/a€à àà àà à)ÌCHARLIE€SIMPSON,€œJR.,›à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OFÏSHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€D.€J.€ALISSANDRATOS,€CHANCELLORÌœ›ÌÌò òTHOMAS€E.€HANSOMÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/AppellantÌÌÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌœAttorney›€œGeneral›€&€œReporter›ÌœMICHAEL›€E.€MOOREÌœSolicitor›€œGeneralÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌò ò›ÌœLARRY€M.€TEAGUEÌSenior€Counsel€for€the€Attorney€GeneralÌCAROLYN€PIPHUSÌAssistant€Attorney€General›Ìœó óJackson,›€TennesseeÌœAttorneys›€for€Petitioner/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óœà àÌÓÓà àThe€Court€below€held€defendant€in›€civil€contempt€for€violating€a€permanentÏÑ7€ }ä XXdæ XXdæ7Ñinjunction€that€prohibited€him€from€obstructing€the€right„of„way€on€a€state€highway.€ÏDefendant€has€appealed€and€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€toÏdismiss€and€with€the€sufficiency€of€the€judgment.€€We€have€determined€that€the€recordÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€civil€contempt€and,€therefore,€we€œaffirm.›ÌÌà àIn€1971,€the€State€of€Tennessee,€ex€rel.€Robert€F.€Smith,€Commissioner€of€theÏDepartment€of€Highways,€filed€a€complaint,€seeking€to€enjoin€the€defendant€fromÏobstructing€the€public€right€of€way€near€his€automobile€junk€yard€on€Highway€70€inÏArlington,€Tennessee.€œThe›€state€alleged€that€defendant€œhad€repeatedly›€placedÏautomobiles€and€piles€of€gravel€on€the€right„of„way,€resulting€in€a€safety€hazard€toÏindividuals€driving€their€vehicles€on€the€œhighway.€On›€April€21,€1971,€the€chancellorÏissued€a€permanent€injunction,€which€provided:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]t€appears€to€the€Court€that€a€preliminary€injunction€shouldÏbe€granted€in€accordance€with€the€prayer€contained€in€theÏoriginal€complaint€and€in€accordance€with€the€opinionÏrendered€orally€by€the€Court€at€the€end€of€the€hearing€heldÏon€April€8,€1971,€a€transcript€of€which€has€been€filed€in€thisÍcause€and€is€herein€incorporated€by€reference€in€thisÏdecree€the€same€as€if€copied€herein€verbatim.Ìà8 àà8 àà àThat€and€by€consent,€the€injunction€may€be€madeÏpermanent€eliminating€the€necessity€for€further€hearings€onÏthis€matter.€Ìà8 àà8 àà àIT€IS,€THEREFORE,€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€a€permanent€injunction€issue€so€as€toÏprohibit€and€restrain€the€defendant€from€obstructing€orÏallowing€any€of€its€agents,€servants€or€employees€toÏobstruct€the€right„of„way€of€the€complainant,€the€State€ofÏTennessee,€said€right„of„way€being€described€in€theÏoriginal€complaint€filed€in€this€cause€and€being€that€propertyÏbetween€the€screening€fence€erected€on€both€sides€of€U.S.ÏHighway€70€by€the€complainant€and€the€paved€portion€ofÏsaid€highway€bordering€on€defendantððs€property€or€that€ofÏany€other€person€when€used€by€the€defendant€in€theÏconduct€of€his€business,€or€to€place€obstacles€of€any€kindÏthereon,€whether€they€be€automobiles,€operational€orÏnonoperational,€or€otherwise.Ìà8 àà8 àà àIT€IS€FURTHER€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€the€defendant,€his€agents,€servants€orÏemployees€or€customers,€shall€be€permitted€at€all€times€toÏhave€reasonable€ingress€and€egress€to€and€from€theÏproperty€in€question,€or€for€the€purpose€of€stopping€for€shortÏperiods€of€time€for€said€purposes€of€ingress€or€egress,€or€forÏthe€conducting€of€his€œbusiness.ÌÌÌ›à àÌÓÓà àIn€1994,€the€state€filed€a€petition,€alleging€that€defendant€had€repeatedly€usedÏthe€highway€right„of„way€for€storage€of€junked€cars€and€parts,€had€caused€a€potentialÏhazard€to€motorists€by€loading€crushed€junk€into€a€hauler€parked€at€the€edge€of€theÏroad,€and€had€blocked€entrances€to€the€junkyard,€all€in€violation€of€the€1971€injunction.€ÏThe€trial€court€issued€a€writ€of€òòscire€œfaciasóó,›€compelling€the€defendant€to€show€causeÏwhy€he€should€not€be€adjudged€in€contempt€of€court€for€violating€the€courtððs€previousÏorder.€€Defendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€stateððs€petition,€arguing€that€the€chancellorððsÏwritten€order€in€the€original€injunction€proceeding€was€incomplete€because€theÍœchancellor€had›€rendered€an€oral€opinion€setting€forth€the€complete€circumstancesÏunder€which€defendant€could€operate€his€business.€€Neither€party€was€able€to€locateÏthe€transcript€of€the€original€hearing.€€According€to€œdefendant,›€the€transcript€from€theÏ1971€hearing€would€have€shown€that€the€chancellor€orally€ruled€that€defendant€wouldÏbe€afforded€72€hours€to€remove€any€vehicles€that€were€placed€along€the€right„of„way.€ÏœThe›€court€below€denied€defendantððs€œmotion.›ÌÌà àAt€the€trial€in€the€present€action,€the€chancellor€limited€the€hearing€to€two€issues:Ï(1)€whether€defendant€blocked€lanes€of€traffic€by€loading€and€unloading€vehicles€at€hisÏbusiness,€and€(2)€whether€defendant€placed€vehicles€in€the€right„of„way€for€longerÏthan€72€hours.€€The€state€conceded€òòarguendoóó€that€the€transcript€would€have€allowedÏdefendant€72€hours€to€move€materials€placed€in€the€œright„of„way.›€€However,€the€stateÏœargued›€that€the€alleged€72„hour€provision€was€irrelevant€because€defendant€had€leftÏmaterials€in€the€œright„of„way›€for€periods€longer€than€72€hours.€ÌÌà àJoe€King€of€the€state€department€of€transportation€was€the€sole€witness€onÏbehalf€of€the€state.€œKing€testified›€that€he€had€received€complaints€from€the€City€ofÏArlington€regarding€defendantððs€junkyard.€€When€King€went€œto€the›€junkyard,€he€sawÏð ðcrushed€cars,€just€about€everything€you€can€name€sitting€alongside€the€state€right€ofÏway.€€Some€was€encroaching€within€six€inches€or€even€better€of€the€pavement....ðð€€KingÏtestified€that€to€his€knowledge,€defendant€had€not€allowed€the€òòsameóó€vehicles€to€beÏstored€on€the€right„of„way€for€more€than€72€œhours.€€However,›€King€stated€that€he€hadÏseen€junk,€such€as€pipes€and€iron,€located€in€the€stateððs€right„of„way€for€as€much€as€aÍweek€at€a€time.€€He€also€testified€that€defendant€loaded€and€unloaded€trucks€from€theÏpaved€lanes€of€the€highway.€ÌÌà àDefendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€œHe›€denied€that€he€had€ever€loaded€orÏunloaded€material€from€the€highway€and€denied€that€he€had€left€any€materials€on€theÏright„of„way€for€more€than€72€œhours.›ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€partiesðð€proof,€the€chancellor€orally€ruled€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Court€finds€that€the€plaintiffs€have€carried€the€burden€ofÏproof€by€clear€and€convincing€proof,€that€indeed€types„„angle€œiron,›€scrap€iron€and€other€junk€and€debris€were€on€theÏright€of€way€for€a€period€in€excess€of€72€hours.€€Even€if€it€isÏone€that€is€replaced€by€another,€itððs€a€violation€in€thisÏCourtððs€opinion....Plus€the€photographs€show€a€dumpster,Ïwhich€Mr.€King€testified€and€the€Court€finds€creditable,€wasÏthere€for€over€72€hours€and€always€full....The€Court€finds€byÏclear€and€convincing€proof€that€the€State€has€carried€itsÏburden€of€proof€with€regard€to€the€traffic€lanes€being€tideÏ[sic]€up....The€Court€has€to€evaluate€the€credibility€of€Mr.ÏKing...I€find€nothing€in€Mr.€King€to€show€that€he€has€doneÏanything€but€telling€it€the€way€he€honestly€recalls€it.€€AndÏwhen€he€does€not€recall€it€clearly,€he€says€so....The€CourtÏdeems€it€appropriate€to€modify€its€injunction€under€theÏcircumstances€so€there€wonððt€be€anyÏmisunderstanding....Mr.€Simpson,...[y]ou€will€put€zero€itemsÏneither€for€loading€nor€unloading,€storing,€etc.€in€any€way,Ïshape,€form€or€fashion....[T]heyððll€[sic]€be€zero€stuff€loaded,Ïunloaded,€stored€in€any€fashion€in€front€of€those€fences€forÏso€much€as€one€minute...Yes,€youððre€entitled€to€get€your€forkÏlift,€frontloader...across€the€street€back€and€forth€in€a€safeÏprompt€fashion...not€stopping€once€you€get€off€the€shoulderÏon€the€right€of€way....You€may€continue€to€block€theÏentrance€with€vehicles€using€them€have€as€a€temporaryÏgate€only€over€œnight.€ÌÌÓÓAccordingly,›€the€chancellor€held€the€defendant€in€contempt€of€the€1971€œinjunction.›ÌÌà àDefendant€argues€on€appeal€that€the€judgment€below€should€be€reversed.€€First,Ïhe€œcontends,›€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€dismiss€because€there€wasÏno€way€to€determine€whether€defendant€was€in€contempt€of€the€1971€order€due€to€theÏfact€that€the€transcript€was€missing.€€Without€the€missing€transcript,€he€argues,€the€trialÏcourt€could€not€determine€what€conduct€was€permitted€or€forbidden.€€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àA€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€reliefÏcan€be€granted€admits€the€truth€of€the€averments€contained€in€the€complaint,€butÏasserts€that€those€facts€do€not€constitute€a€cause€of€action.€€òòCornpropst€v.€Sloanóó,€528ÏS.W.2d€188€(Tenn.€1975).€€A€complaint€should€not€be€dismissed€under€this€ruleÏð ðunless€it€appears€beyond€doubt€that€plaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€hisÏclaim€that€would€entitle€him€to€relief.ðð€€òòFuerst€v.€Methodist€Hosp.€Southóó,€566€S.W.2dÏ847,€848€(Tenn.€1977)(quoting€òòConley€v.€Gibsonóó,€355€U.S.€41€(1957)).€€WhenÏreviewing€a€complaint€under€Rule€12.02(6),€this€court€must€take€all€material€factualÏallegations€as€true,€and€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff.€€òòDobbsÏv.€Guentheróó,€846€S.W.2d€270,€273€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àThe€state€brought€the€present€action€alleging€that€defendant€violated€the€€1971Ïinjunction€by€obstructing€the€stateððs€right€of€way.€€The€written€1971€order€explicitlyÏprohibits€defendant€from€obstructing€the€stateððs€right„of„way.€€Construing€the€complaintÏliberally€in€favor€of€the€state,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€œcourtððs€denial€of€defendantððsÏmotion€to€›€œdismiss›€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€œconstituted›€error.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition,€we€do€not€find€the€language€of€the€1971€order€to€be€so€ambiguousÏor€incomplete€as€to€be€unenforceable.€€œð ðAn›€ambiguous€judgment€should€be€construedÏas€a€whole€so€as,€if€possible,€to€give€effect€to€all€parts€thereof€and€to€effectuate€theÏintent€and€purpose€of€the€court.ðð€€49€C.J.S.€Judgments€ðð436,€p.€862.€€"It€is€the€spirit€andÏnot€the€mere€letter€of€the€injunction€that€must€be€obeyed€...€thus,€if€the€phraseology€ofÏthe€writ€be€inartificial€and€obscure,€but€its€spirit€and€intent€be€manifest,€the€party€will€notÏbe€excused€for€its€violation."€€òòBlair€v.€Nelsonóó,€67€Tenn.€1,€5€(1874).€€œWe›€think€the€recordÏshows€that€defendant€knew€what€was€required€of€him€and€was€on€notice€that€hisÏconduct€violated€the€court's€order.€Ìà àÌà àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€does€not€supportÏthe€chancellorððs€finding€that€he€violated€the€1971€injunction.€€ÌÌà àDetermining€and€dealing€with€contempt€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏcourt.€€òòRobinson€v.€Air€Draulics€Engineering€Co.óó,€377€S.W.2d€908,€912€(Tenn.€1964).€ÏAbsent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€will€notÏbe€reversed€upon€appeal.€€As€this€case€was€tried€without€a€jury,€this€courtððs€review€ofÏthe€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€these€findings,€or€there€exists€an€error€of€law,€we€must€affirm.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€ÏFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€œchancellorððs€factual›€findings.€€œSimilarly,›€we€find€no€indicationÍof€any€abuse€of€œdiscretion€in€connection€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€enter€aÏcontempt€order.›€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€œdefendant.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›ÌÌà à