State ex rel. Haynes v. Daugherty

• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.
• Decision Date: 10 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. M2018-01394-COA-R10-CV,M2018-01394-COA-R10-CV
• Citation: State ex rel. Haynes v. Daugherty, No. M2018-01394-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. App. Sep 10, 2019)
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE EX REL. RACHEL BETH HAYNES v. ALLAN VINCENT DAUGHERTY

STATE OF TENNESSEE EX REL. RACHEL BETH HAYNES v. ALLAN VINCENT DAUGHERTY

No. M2018-01394-COA-R10-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

April 2, 2019 Session

September 10, 2019

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County

No. 57095

Diana Benson Burns, Magistrate

The issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the trial court erred in requiring a cash-only appearance bond. Father, who had an arrearage judgment for failing to pay child support, was arrested and incarcerated pursuant to an order of attachment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(2). The trial court set an appearance bond, without an evidentiary hearing, at the full amount of the alleged arrearage, $13,413.45, and restricted the bond to cash. The order also directed that, upon payment of the cash bond, the funds were to be forwarded immediately to the State Disbursement Unit and applied to Father's arrears. In subsequent hearings, the trial court denied Father the right to post a secured bond, and this Tenn. R. App. P. 10 Extraordinary Appeal followed. First, we hold that the trial court violated Father's constitutional rights under Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution and under the equal protection guarantees of both the Tennessee and United States Constitutions by imposing a cash-only appearance bond. Second, we hold that the trial court violated Father's due process rights under both the state and federal constitutions by imposing a $13,413.45 cash-only bond as a means to collect a civil debt and ordering that the bond be immediately applied in satisfaction of the alleged debt, without an evidentiary hearing. Finally, we hold that the trial court misconstrued the applicable statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(2), as allowing it to use the appearance bond solely as a means to collect the alleged arrears, rather than as a means to ensure Father's appearance for legal proceedings. Therefore, because the trial court failed to identify and apply the appropriate legal principles, both statutory and constitutional, and its decision was not supported by an evidentiary foundation, the decision constituted an abuse of discretion. Because the trial court erred in requiring a cash-only appearance bond, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, the amount of bond shall be $1,000, which Father may post with sufficient sureties, and the case is remanded for further proceedings as may be necessary.

Tenn. R. App. P. 10 Extraordinary Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., joined. W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Paul Andrew Justice, III, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Allan Vincent Daugherty.

Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; and Alexander S. Rieger, Deputy Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, State of Tennessee ex rel. Rachel Beth Haynes.

OPINION

Allan Daugherty ("Father") and Rachel Haynes ("Mother") were divorced in the Rutherford County Circuit Court in 2008. The court designated Mother as the primary residential parent of the couple's three minor children, and Father was ordered to pay $144.25 weekly in child support. On May 6, 2015, following a hearing on Mother's petition for Father's failure to pay child support as ordered, the court established a child support arrearage against Father in the amount of $2,453.97 and ordered Father to pay Mother $573 per month in child support.

On September 7, 2017, the State of Tennessee (the "State") filed a petition for civil contempt against Father, on behalf of Mother, alleging Father failed to pay child support as ordered by the court. Shortly following, Father requested and was provided with counsel. At a hearing in December 2017, Father and the State entered into an agreed order, which stated that Father owed $10,288.57 in child support and provided that Father would pay $600 per month, which added $27 per month to the current support award of $573 to satisfy the latest arrearage. The court did not make a specific finding of civil contempt; however, citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(2),¹ the order provided that "if[Father] fails to pay child support as ordered for a thirty day period, an automatic attachment may issue for his/her arrest upon filing of proposed Order with pay record attached."

On June 11, 2018, the State filed a proposed "Order for Attachment" with the pay record attached alleging Father had made no child support payments since January 2018. The order proposed by the State provided that an attachment "shall issue for the Respondent's arrest with [a] cash bond of $13,413.45," which was the amount of child support Father owed. (Emphasis in original). The proposed "Order for Attachment" also stated, "Upon payment of cash bond, funds shall be forwarded instanter to [the State Disbursement Unit] and applied towards the Respondent's arrears." The child support magistrate signed the "Order for Attachment" that same day, and the subsequent "Attachment" issued by the court ordered the sheriff to arrest Father and to bring him before the Rutherford County Circuit Court on July 25, 2018. It also directed the sheriff to take a cash bond of $13,413.45, "conditioned for his appearance at the time and place shown above."

Father was arrested on June 14, 2018, and because he could not pay the cash-only bond, he remained incarcerated until June 20, when he appeared in court. Rather than request a hearing or the appointment of counsel, Father reached an agreement with the Assistant District Attorney that reduced Father's bond to $6,000. The Agreed Order also provided that upon payment of $300, Father would be released to "serve weekends at the Rutherford County Adult Detention Center . . . until the remaining $5,700 is paid in full." Because Father argued that a medical condition prevented him from maintaining employment, the court ordered Father to bring proof of his medical condition to the hearing set for July 25, 2018, as provided in the "Attachment."

Sometime after the June hearing, Father obtained counsel and then filed a "Request for Hearing before Judge and Motion to Quash Illegal Attachment." In his motion, Father contended that the "Attachment" was illegal because it restricted payment of the bond to cash. Moreover, Father argued that the court's subsequent June 20, 2018 order effectively "sentenced [him] to two days in jail per week until the end of time," without ever finding him in contempt and without ever determining whether Father had the ability to pay. Father asked the court to review the June 20 order and "quash the attachment in its entirety." After a hearing on July 6, the court denied the motion.

At the hearing on July 25, 2018, the court found that aside from one weekend, Father had "failed to either serve the 48 hours per week or pay the cash bond aspreviously ordered." The court asked Father if he was willing to comply with the June 20 Agreed Order, and Father, through counsel, continued to argue that the order was invalid. Therefore, the court ruled:

Accordingly, in that Respondent refuses to comply with the terms of said Agreed Order, the Court finds it appropriate to set such order aside and to restore the status of this proceeding to that which was in effect prior to the entry of the Agreed Order. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(2), Respondent is remanded into the custody of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department with cash bond in the amount of $13,413.45. This matter is set for further hearing on August 9, 2018, for Respondent to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failing to comply with the Orders of the court.

Father filed an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 10, and this court granted review to consider whether the trial court erred by requiring a cash-only appearance bond.²

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Bond, in general, is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, see Graham v. Gen. Sessions Court of Franklin Cty., 157 S.W.3d 790, 793 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), and the statute at issue, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f)(2), uses "may" and "in the discretion of the court." Thus, the type and amount of bond a court may require constitutes a discretionary decision.

Discretionary decisions require "a conscientious judgment, consistent with the facts, that takes into account the applicable law." White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Lee Med. Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). "Discretionary decisions must take the applicable law and the relevant facts into account." Lee Med. Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524. Thus, there should be a "factual basis for the decision that is properly supported by evidence in the record," the trial court should have "properly identified and applied the most appropriate legal principles applicable to thedecision," and the trial court's decision should be "within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions." Id. (citation omitted).

When an appellate court is called upon to review a trial court's discretionary decision, it reviews the underlying factual findings using the preponderance of the evidence standard contained in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) and reviews the trial court's legal determinations de novo without any presumption of correctness. Id. at 525. Following a review pursuant to these standards, if we determine that the trial court's judgment is not based on the applicable legal principles or relevant facts, an abuse of discretion may be found. Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).

Based on the foregoing, we shall determine whether the trial court properly identified and applied the relevant legal principles and whether there is a factual basis for the decision requiring Father to post a cash-only appearance bond.

ANALYSIS

Father concedes that § 36-5-101(f)(2...