“ ‘A determination of contempt is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the provisions of the law.’ ” Daniels v. Grimac, 342 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Watkins, ex rel. Duncan v. Methodist Healthcare Sys., No. W2008–01349–COA–R3–CV, 2009 WL 1328898, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2009)). Because a trial court's use of its contempt power is discretionary, appellate courts review a trial court's contempt citation using the abuse of discretion standard.

“ ‘A determination of contempt is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the provisions of the law.’ ” Daniels v. Grimac, 342 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Watkins, ex rel. Duncan v. Methodist Healthcare Sys., No. W2008–01349–COA–R3–CV, 2009 WL 1328898, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2009) ). Because a trial court's use of its contempt power is discretionary, appellate courts review a trial court's contempt citation using the abuse of discretion standard. Outdoor Mgmt., LLC v. Thomas, 249 S.W.3d 368, 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

With respect to the trial court's determinations on questions of law, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Watkins, ex rel. Duncan v. Methodist Healthcare Sys., No. W2008-01349-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1328898, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2009) (citing Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000)).

The events giving rise to this matter occurred on March 26 and 27, 2008, during a trial in which the Defendant, R. Sadler Bailey (Mr. Bailey), an attorney, appeared before the Circuit Court for Shelby County as legal counsel for a litigant. Watkins, ex rel. Duncan v. Methodist Healthcare System, No. W2008-01349-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1328898 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2009). Following heated exchanges between Mr. Bailey and the trial judge, the trial court stated that it considered Mr. Bailey to be in contempt, and on March 28 the trial court entered an order setting a contempt hearing for April 2, 2008. Id. at *2.

The question in this case is whether the trial court erred when it exercised its summary contempt authority more than three weeks after it initially cited Moncier for contempt. This Court addressed a nearly identical issue in Watkins, ex rel. Duncan v. Methodist Healthcare System, No. W2008-01349-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1328898 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 13, 2009). In Watkins, a plaintiffs attorney, Sadler Bailey ("Bailey"), made several remarks during the course of proceedings before the trial court which the court deemed contemptuous.