WPC iolҫ)@3W+ {|(NhAL' #1 cHnc2]qK)q}%| #iP6s]dr%`k*Y](]V=88 hQCVh߂02JXG4läFfzxVRϨFx{r5jЬȷo;9$L 2z>t#}Tfڗw@,V5p "q( ʼnN $pM>Nؼ-fVpj޵e@هIشG5y~,pْ4q*(8Hi/\,ZW*4]<3"dnH0`6(khJcx˺A?RQ_Df,W$q@E0:ы|W=hт{J5rG.G{/V8 >mΣֻAb#\ % UN# 0q U(N 0DG U N z S U@% ^ e wq 4u  O N mEbD 0 B 0! D3 D- 0K%% ASp 0 0D- AqHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(hH  Z(Times New Roman (t-s ],$ڢLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xU- - : R$      1  T  _ԀWenotethatbecauseMr._Perritt_Ԁhaspurgedhimselfofcivilcontempt,onlythechargeofcriminalcontempt  remainsbeforethisCourt.(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  T d(|3"$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3"$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8;XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   MARCH5,2002Session X X;X #XX;#COOPERMANAGEMENT,LLCv._PERFORMA_ԀENTERTAINMENT,  ` INC.,a/k/a_PERFORMA_ԀENTERTAINMENTREALESTATE,INC.X;X  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty 0  @@No.9906122;TheHonorableRobertLanier,Judge,byInterchange  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W200101134_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust15,_2002_ ?  AV) ` dE<` A     XXXX;Thisappealinvolvesachancerycourtsdecisiontoholdanenjoinedpartyinbothcivilandcriminal  contemptforfailingtoabidebyaninjunction.Theinjunctionrequiredtheenjoinedpartytoremove   atentstructurefromcertainpropertywithinareasonabletime.Theenjoinedpartywasalsoordered  torefrainfromplacingfurtherencroachmentsontheproperty.Followingapetitionforcontempt,  thecourtfoundthattheenjoinedpartyhadfailedtoremovethetentstructurewithinareasonable ~ timeandhad,instead,placedmoreitemsontheproperty.Accordingly,thecourtfoundtheenjoined j partyincivilandcriminalcontempt.Underthecivilcontemptcharge,theenjoinedpartywas V sentencedtojailuntilhecompliedwiththecourtsorder.Forthecriminalcontemptcharge,the B courtorderedthepartytoservesevendaysinjail.Fivedaysintotheenjoinedpartyssentence,he .~ compliedwiththecourtsorderandwasreleasedonbond.Henowappealstheremainingtwodays j onhissentence.Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirminpart,reverseinpart,andremandthiscase V tothechancerycourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. B #X;XXXh##XX;#X;X\ Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinPart,   ReversedinPartandRemanded  !    #X;e #X;X.AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andDon #" R.Ash,S.J.,joined. ~$# RandallJ.Fishman,_Frierson_ԀM.Graves,Jr.,Memphis,TN,forAppellant ^&!% J.Richard_Rossie_,DavidA.Billions,Memphis,TN,forAppellee >(#' ?   -.)- OPINION #XX;n #X;X  #XX;#X;X  XXXX;@FactsandProceduralHistory   #X;XXX#XXXX;  Thefactsofthiscaseareverycomplicatedduetotheinvolvementofnumerouspartiesand h variouslegalproceedings.Thus,intheinterestofjudicialeconomy,wehavechosentooutlineonly T  therelevantfactspertainingtothecontroversynowbeforethisCourt. @    _Performa_ԀEntertainment,Inc.,a/k/a_Performa_ԀEntertainmentRealEstate,Inc.(_Performa_)  h conductsbusinessindowntownMemphis,Tennesseeonpropertyleasedfrom310BealeStreet  T  Properties,LLC(310Properties)underleasesdatedFebruary30,1999andFebruary26,2001.The  @  propertysubjecttotheleasesiscommonlyknownas 310BealeStreet.Thesetwolease ,  agreementswereexecutedby_Performa_,310Properties,andHurricaneMemphis,LLC,asubtenant.   TheleaseswerefurthersignedbyvariouscityofficialsandRobert_Catron_,whopurportedtobethe   ExecutiveDirectorofBealeStreetDevelopmentCorporation(_BSDC_).   Ѐ  Theauthoritytolease310BealeStreet,however,wasapparentlyindispute.PaulSavarin x andGeorgeMiller,purportingtoactonbehalfof_BSDC_,enteredintoanotherleaseforproperty d commonlyknownas326BealeStreetaswellas thevacantlotimmediatelytothewestwithBrent P _Perritt_Ԁ(Mr._Perritt_),whowasactingonbehalfofCooperManagement,LLC(Cooper).Thevacant < lotrecitedintheleasedescribesthe310BealeStreetproperty.ThisleasewasdatedSeptember15, (x 2000. d #X;XXX#XXXX;  SubsequenttoCoopersleaseoftheproperty,Coopererectedasteelspantentstructure(the < tent)whichpartiallyencroachedonthe310BealeStreetproperty.Fromthisstructure,Coopercould ( conductbusinesswithBealeStreetpatrons.    Withthetwosetsofagreements,controversiesoverthe_possessory_Ԁrightsofthe310Beale  Streetpropertywereinevitable.Accordingly,onMarch28,2001,_Performa_Ԁpetitionedthechancery  courtforaninjunctiondeclaringitsleasevalid,declaringCoopersleasevoid,andrequiringCooper t toremovethetentandotherencroachingproperty.AhearingonthematterwasheldonApril4, `  2001. L!   OnApril6,2001,thecourtissuedaninjunctiondeclaring_Perfoma_sleasevalidandCoopers $#t! leasevoid.#X;XXX#XXXX;TheinjunctionalsoorderedMr._Perritt_ԀandCooperManagementtoremovethetentand $`" otherencroachmentswithinareasonabletimeandrefrainfromplacinganyadditionalencroachments $L # ontheproperty.Specifically,thecourtsinjunctionstated: %8!$ 8  3.CooperManagement,_L.L.C._,includingBrent_Perritt_Ԁandallotherindividuals '#& actingorpurportingtoactonits,orhis,behalfareorderedtoremovealloftheir (#' possessions,includingtentsandotherstructures,assoonasreasonablypossible,from )$( [the310BealeStreetproperty].*%)   8  ....p+&*   8  4.CooperManagement,_L.L.C._Ԁmustpromptlyremoveallencroachmentsfrom310  BealeStreetwithinareasonabletime.   8  5.UntilanyfurtherorderofthisCourttothecontrary,CooperManagement,_L.L.C._  andBrent_Perritt_Ԁaswellasanyoneactingontheirbehalforinconcertwiththemare t prohibitedfromplacinganyencroachmentsupon,orhinderingtheuseof,[the310 ` BealeStreetproperty].L    #X;XXXT#XXXX;AlthoughthecourthadinitiallydecidedtogiveCooperandMr._Perritt_Ԁthirtydaystocomplywith  ` thetermsoftheinjunction,onthesuggestionof_Performa_Ԁthecourtchangedthetimeperiodtoa  L   reasonabletime.  8     `     h   Threeweekslater,onApril27,2001,withthestructurestillinplace,_Performa_Ԁpetitioned   thecourttoholdMr._Perritt_Ԁincivilandcriminalcontemptforfailingtoabidebytheinjunction.#X;XXXv"#XXXX;At   thecontempthearing,_Performa_Ԁassertedthatinsteadofremovingthetent,Mr._Perritt_,actingfor   Cooper,hadplacedmoreitemsontheproperty.     OnMay8,2001,thecourtenteredanorderholdingMr._Perritt_Ԁinbothcivilandcriminal \ contempt.#X;XXXu%#XXXX;ThecourtsentencedMr._Perritt_Ԁtosevendaysinjailforthecriminalcontemptcharge. H Further,underthecivilcontemptcharge,Mr._Perritt_Ԁwassentencedtoajailtermforanindefinite 4 period,beingsubjecttoreleaseuponcompliancewiththecourtsinjunction.Afterservingfivedays,  p thestructurewasremovedandMr._Perritt_Ԁwasreleasedfromjailonbond.Mr._Perritt_Ԁnowappeals  \ thedecisionofthelowercourtandarguesthatheshouldnotbeforcedtoservetheremainingtwo H daysinjailunderhiscriminalcontemptconviction. 4 Ѐ#X;XXXp'#XXXX;      _Issues _   +__  0 `  I. ` Whethertheinjunctionuponwhichthecontemptconvictionisbasedviolates  TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure65inthatitisvagueandusesindefiniteterms;  and` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#  II. ` Whethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sfindingthatMr._Perritt_ X  violatedtheinjunction;andD!` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#  III. ` WhetherthisCourtshould,onitsowninitiative,revisethepunishmentissuedbythe #l! lowercourtforthecriminalcontemptcharge. $X"` (#` (# __  LawandAnalysis  %0!$ .__  Inhisfirstissue,Mr._Perritt_Ԁarguesthatthechancerycourtsorderfindinghimincontempt &"%  shouldbesetasidebecauseoftheunderlyinginjunctionsfailuretocomplywithTennesseeRuleof '#& CivilProcedure65.Mr._Peritt_Ԁarguesthattheinjunctionlackssufficientspecificityastothetime  inwhichperformancewasrequiredand,thus,cannotserveasaproperbasisforcriminalcontempt._P #  1      _Ԁ     TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthatfindingapartyincontemptis withinthecourt's t sounddiscretion,subjecttotheabsoluteprovisionsofthelaw.Robinsonv.Air_Draulics_Ԁ_Engg_ԀCo., ` 377S.W.2d908,912(Tenn.1964)(citing17_C.J.S._ԀContempt57,page131).Accordingly,the L  courts determinationisfinalunlessthereisplainabuseofdiscretion.Id.;SeealsoHawkv. 8  Hawk,855S.W.2d573,583(Tenn.1993);_Sherrod_Ԁv._Wix_,849S.W.2d780,786(Tenn.Ct.App. $ t 1992).  `   Indeterminingwhetheranabuseofdiscretionhasoccurred,#X;XXX*#XXXX;appellatecourtsmustnotmerely  8  substitutetheirjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourt.Whitev.VanderbiltUniv.,21S.W.3d215,223 $  (Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Instead,appellatereviewmustseektodeterminewhetherthelowercourt's   decisionhasabasisinlaworfactandisthereforenotarbitrary,illogical,orunconscionable.State   v.Brown&WilliamsonTobaccoCorp.,18S.W.3d186,191(Tenn.2000).Whereatrialcourthas   improperlyconstruedorappliedtheapplicablelegalprinciples,appellatecourtsmayproperlyreverse   thetrialcourtsdecision.White,21S.W.3dat223.#X;XXX5#XXXX;Ԁ p   Inthecasesubjudice,theproperplacetobeginourinquiryiswithTennesseeRuleofCivil H Procedure65,whichoutlinestherequirementsforavalidinjunction.Rule65(2)providesin 4 pertinentpartthat, [_e]very_Ԁrestrainingorderorinjunctionshallbespecificintermsandshall  p describeinreasonabledetail,andnotbyreferencetothecomplaintorotherdocument,theact  \ restrainedorenjoined.TennR.Civ.P.65.02(1)(emphasisadded).Theobviouspurposeofthis H provisionisto_apprise_Ԁtheenjoinedpartyoftheconductorderedandthemannerinwhichtoremain 4 incompliancewiththeinjunction.SeeRobertBanks,Jr.&JuneF._Entman_,TennesseeCivil   Procedure43(e),p.118(1999).Thus,ourfocusshouldbenarrowedtothedeterminationof   whetherthelanguageemployedintheunderlyinginjunctionwassufficienttoproperly_apprise_ԀMr.  _Perritt_Ԁoftheconductrequiredandtimelimitationsunderwhichhewastolabor.    WemustdistinguishtheportionoftheinjunctionwhichorderedMr._Perritt_Ԁtoact within l areasonabletimeand assoonasreasonablyproper,fromtheportionthatorderedMr._Perritt_Ԁto X  refrainfromplacingadditionalencroachmentsonthe310BealeStreetproperty.Wewillfirst D! discussthechancerycourtsuseofreasonablenessasthestandardbywhichMr._Perritt_Ԁhadto 0"  perform. #l!   Afteradiligentsearch,wehavebeenunabletouncoveranyTennesseeprecedentthat $D # discussesRule65'sspecificityrequirementsasapplicablehere.However,knowingthatthepurpose %0!$ ofRule65istoensurethatpartiessubjecttoaninjunctionareproperly_apprised_Ԁoftheirobligations, &"%  weholdthatcourtsareboundtouseanobjectivestandardinsettingatimeperiodunderwhicha '#& partymustlabor.Thecourtsorder,whichrequiredMr._Perritt_Ԁtotakedownthetentwithina  reasonabletime,failedasamatteroflawtosufficientlycomplywithRule65inthisrespect.     Thecourtsownstatementshowedtheinherentsubjectivenessinthestandarditapplied. t WhendiscussingthetimeperiodinwhichMr._Perritt_Ԁshouldperformatthehearingfromwhichthe ` injunctionwasordered,thecourtstated, aslongasitsreasonablebehavior.Iwillhavetojudge L  thereasonablenessofwhatisinvolved.Thisstatementaloneshowsthat,asamatteroflaw,Mr. 8  _Perritt_Ԁwasnotproperly_apprised_Ԁofthetimelimitationsimposed. $ t   _Performa_Ԁarguesthatthechancerycourtinitiallyindicatedthatthirtydayswouldbean  L  appropriatetimeperiodforthetentsremoval,butafteritsobjection,thelanguagewaschangedto  8  thestandardactuallyemployed.Itfollows,_Performa_Ԁargues,thatMr._Perritt_Ԁwasonnoticethatthe $  chancerycourtintendedthe reasonabletimeperiodtobeshorterthanthirtydays.Wedisagree   with_Performa_sargument.Becausethecourtemployedastandardthatwastoosubjective,the   findingofcontemptfailedasamatteroflawwithrespecttothisprovision.Evenifthecourt   intendedaperiodlessthanthirtydays,thecourtwasstillforcedtoemploythesubjectivestandard.   Therefore,thechancerycourterredinholdingMr._Perritt_Ԁincriminalcontemptforfailingtoabide p bythisportionoftheinjunction. \   However,asstatedabove,theinjunctionalsoorderedMr._Perritt_Ԁtorefrainfromplacing 4 additionalencroachmentsonthe310BealeStreetproperty.Mr._Perritt_,inhisbrief,admitsto  p placingtheseitemsontheportionofthepropertysubjecttotheinjunctionsubsequenttothe  \ injunctionsentry,butargues,essentially,thattherewasnopointincomplyingwiththisportionof H theinjunctionuntilthetentwasremoved.Wedisagree.Whetherornotthetentwasinplace,Mr. 4 _Perritt_Ԁwasboundtofollowthisportionoftheinjunction.Thus,thechancerycourtdidnoterrin   findingMr._Perritt_Ԁincontemptforviolationofthisportionoftheinjunction.     Inconcludingthatthechancerycourterredinimproperlybasingaportionofthecriminal  contemptchargeonaninsufficientlyobjectivestandard,wehavedeterminedthatitisnecessaryto  adjustMr._Perritt_spunishment.Itiswellsettledthatappellatecourtsretainjurisdiction torevise l andreducethesentenceimposedforcontempt.Robinson,377S.W.2dat913.Although,as X  pointedoutby_Performa_,wegenerallyavoidmodificationsofdiscretionarydecisions,the D! circumstancesofthiscasedictateotherwiseduetothechancerycourtserror.Weholdthatthefive 0"  daysservedbyMr._Perritt_Ԁconstitutesproperpunishmentforhisactionsindisobeyingtheportion #l! ofthechancerycourtsinjunctionorderinghimtorefrainfromplacingadditionalencroachmentson $X" theproperty.Thus,Mr._Perritt_Ԁshallnotberequiredtoservetheremainingtwodaysofhissentence. $D #   Havingsufficientlydisposedofthisissue,theremainingargumentsofMr._Perritt_Ԁare &"% unnecessarytoaddress. '#& Ѐ (#'     h+&* Conclusion   xT#X;XXX8# X;XXX;  Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirminpartandreverseinpartthedecision  ofthetrialcourtandremandthiscauseforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Costs x onappealareassessedequallyagainsttheappellant,Brent_Perritt_,andhissurety,andtheappellee, h #X;XX X;T#XXXX;_Performa_ԀEntertainment,Inc.#X;XXXV# X;XXX;,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#X;XX X;JW#XXXX; X  #X;XXXW##XX;#X;X   `     h     ___________________________________ h     `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE