State v. Gene Ivan Amanns
1999 WL 135053, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 242, 2 S.W.3d 241 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal theft statute does not apply to a mere breach of a construction contract when the owner initially consented to the transfer of funds, as such disputes do not inherently create a fiduciary relationship or demonstrate criminal intent to deprive the owner of property without effective consent.
Facts:
- In early July 1994, Gene Ivan Amanns, a contractor, entered into a written contract with Otey Sue Reynolds to remodel the basement of her home for $16,000.
- The contract specified payment terms including an initial amount, a second payment at 50% completion, and the balance upon completion.
- On July 21, 1994, Ms. Reynolds paid Amanns $6,000 by check, which Amanns cashed the following day.
- On July 22, 1994, Amanns deposited $1,760.57 with 84 Lumber Company for materials for Ms. Reynolds’ remodeling project, though he was not contractually obligated to establish this account.
- Amanns began work on August 1, 1994, by unloading materials, and worked approximately six hours on August 2, 1994.
- On August 3, 1994, Ms. Reynolds expressed displeasure with Amanns' workmanship and told him she did not want him to work there anymore, after which Amanns loaded his tools and left.
- Within two days, Ms. Reynolds contacted her attorney, who subsequently sent Amanns a letter instructing him to have no further contact with Ms. Reynolds.
- On August 5, 1994, Amanns requested and received a check for $1,494.50 from 84 Lumber, representing the balance of his deposit for the Reynolds job.
Procedural Posture:
- Ms. Otey Sue Reynolds obtained a civil judgment for $6,000 against Gene Ivan Amanns in Knox County General Sessions Court.
- During the criminal trial in Knox County Criminal Court, Gene Ivan Amanns moved for a judgment of acquittal.
- The trial court denied the motion for acquittal, ruling that while there was insufficient proof for theft of $6,000, there was sufficient proof to establish theft in the amount of $1,494.50, and submitted the case to the jury on this reduced amount.
- A jury in the Knox County Criminal Court convicted Gene Ivan Amanns of theft of property, a class D felony, for $1,494.50.
- The trial court imposed a four-year sentence of split confinement, ordering Amanns to serve six months in jail followed by supervised probation, and to pay restitution of $1,494.50.
- Gene Ivan Amanns, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contractor's failure to complete a remodeling project after receiving an initial payment constitute criminal theft under Tennessee law, even if the owner consents to the initial transfer of funds and no fiduciary relationship is explicitly established?
Opinions:
Majority - David G. Hayes
No, a contractor's failure to complete a remodeling project after receiving an initial payment does not constitute criminal theft under Tennessee law, because the funds were obtained with the owner's consent and a mere breach of contract does not establish criminal intent to deprive or a fraudulent breach of trust. The court explains that Tennessee's consolidated theft statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103) requires proof that property was obtained without the owner's effective consent and with the intent to deprive. In this case, Ms. Reynolds lawfully gave Amanns the $6,000, relinquishing her interest in the money at that time. The record lacks proof that Amanns took possession of the $6,000 with an initial intent to convert it for his own use, as he deposited funds for materials and began work. The dispute arose from Ms. Reynolds' dissatisfaction with the workmanship, leading to the contract's termination, which is a civil breach. The State's argument that Amanns committed 'fraudulent breach of trust' was rejected; this older form of theft applies when one is bound to return the received item or its proceeds, a condition not inherently present in a construction contract for real property improvements. The court reasoned that construction contracts do not automatically create a fiduciary relationship, and imposing such a relationship without statutory authority would wrongly convert every civil breach of contract into a criminal proceeding, which is prohibited by Article One, Section 18 of the Tennessee Constitution against imprisonment for debt. Therefore, Amanns' conduct, while a breach of contract, failed to meet the elements of criminal theft, particularly the lack of effective consent and the intent to deprive.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between civil contractual disputes and criminal theft, preventing the criminalization of ordinary business disagreements. It clarifies that for a payment to a contractor to constitute theft, there must be clear evidence of an initial fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of property without effective consent, rather than merely a failure to perform contractual obligations. The ruling reinforces that construction contracts, by their nature, do not automatically create a 'fiduciary relationship' that would support charges of fraudulent breach of trust under criminal statutes. This precedent safeguards the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt and limits the application of criminal theft statutes to actual criminal conduct, guiding future courts in distinguishing between civil grievances and prosecutable offenses.
