Linda R. Zweifel, n/k/a Linda R. Smith v. Randall Zweifel ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                  In the Missouri Court of Appeals
    Eastern District
    DIVISION ONE
    LINDA R. ZWEIFEL,                             )       No. ED107451
    n/k/a LINDA R. SMITH,                         )
    )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
    Respondent,                            )       of Jefferson County
    vs.                                           )
    )       Hon. Antonio M. Manansala
    RANDALL ZWEIFEL,                              )
    )       Filed:
    Appellant.                             )       January 28, 2020
    Randall Zweifel appeals from the contempt judgment entered against him for
    conduct his ex-wife Linda Smith claimed violated the dissolution judgments. We reverse.
    Background
    Zweifel and Smith jointly owned and operated Lawn Managers, Inc. during their
    marriage.   The marriage dissolved, and the parties reached an agreement regarding their
    business interests, among other things. The parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement was
    incorporated into the dissolution judgment dated May 1, 2012 (collectively the agreement
    and judgment will be referred to as “2012 MSA and Judgment”). Therein, it was agreed
    that Smith would assign all of her shares in the lawn care business to Zweifel, which would
    continue under the name “Lawn Managers, Inc.,” and Smith would establish a new lawn
    care company. In Section 5.02, the parties divided the accounts and accounts receivable
    of the business. They were each awarded certain commercial accounts and accounts
    receivable; Smith was “awarded all right, title, and interest in all residential accounts and
    accounts receivable in the following zip codes,” and then 19 zip codes were listed. Zweifel
    was similarly “awarded all right, title, and interest in all residential accounts and accounts
    receivable” in 54 zip codes.
    In Section 5.06, the parties addressed “Development of New Business.” Therein,
    Smith agreed that her new lawn care business would use the name “Progressive Lawn
    Managers, Inc., doing business as Lawn Managers” for a period of no more than two years
    and would thereafter stop using the name “Lawn Managers” and use only the name
    “Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc.” In that same section, the parties included a non-
    solicitation agreement:
    For a period of two years from that date of dissolution of marriage [Smith]
    and her employees will refrain from soliciting residential accounts and
    commercial accounts in the zip codes that have been awarded to [Zweifel]
    in Section 5.02(2)(b), and [Zweifel] and his employees will refrain from
    soliciting residential accounts and commercial accounts in the zip codes that
    have been awarded to [Smith] in Section 5.02(2)(b). [Smith] and [Zwefiel]
    understand that the agreement to refrain from soliciting business in the zip
    codes awarded to the other party includes business for lawn care services,
    fertilization, weed control, insect control, and other types of lawn service.
    There appears to never have been any dispute that under the above terms of the
    2012 MSA and Judgment, the parties were: (1) each awarded a number of existing
    commercial accounts and a number of existing residential accounts in identified zip codes
    and (2) each had the exclusive right to solicit new commercial or residential accounts in
    those zip codes, at least for two years. There was, however, disagreement as to the meaning
    of “solicit” in Section 5.06. When residential customers in Smith’s zip codes contacted
    Zweifel for service, he began servicing them, claiming to believe that because he did not
    “solicit” their business he was not violating the 2012 Judgment. It appears that some of
    those 72 customers he began servicing were existing accounts awarded to Smith in Section
    2
    5.02 and some of them were new accounts covered by the non-solicitation provision in
    Section 5.06.
    In October of 2013, Smith filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Zweifel
    solicited and serviced accounts that had been awarded to her in violation of Section 5.02
    and the non-solicitation provision of Section 5.06. 1 Zweifel filed a cross-motion for
    contempt alleging Smith was engaged in similar behavior. Ultimately, the parties reached
    an agreement settling the issues in these motions on July 25, 2014. The terms of that
    agreement were entered as the judgment of the court (collectively this agreement and
    judgment will be referred to as “2014 Settlement and Judgment”). Therein, the parties
    agreed that “each may sign up and service new commercial accounts wherever they may
    be, regardless of zip code.” As to residential accounts, the parties agreed as follows:
    Parties agree that each of them shall NOT sign up or service any new
    residential accounts in the zip codes awarded to the other in [the 2012 MSA
    and Judgment]. This non-compete agreement shall remain in effect for two
    years from today’s date and is enacted in lieu of the prior non-solicitation
    clause found in paragraph 5.06 of [the 2012 Judgment]. 2
    Zweifel also agreed to transfer to Smith “all of his existing residential customers” in two
    of the zip codes that had been awarded to him in 2012, and these zip codes were expressly
    covered by the non-competition provision above. Otherwise, the parties agreed, “[a]ll other
    terms of [the 2012 MSA and Judgment] shall remain in full force and effect.” It was also
    agreed that Smith would stop using the name “Lawn Managers” on December 31, 2014
    and thereafter use only the name “Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc.” for her business.
    1
    Several months earlier, Zweifel was held in contempt of the 2012 MSA and Judgment, on Smith’s motion,
    for failing to make a certain payment thereunder. He successfully purged himself of that contempt by making
    the payment.
    2
    We note the two-year non-solicitation clause in Section 5.06 of the 2012 MSA and Judgment—which this
    non-compete was said to replace—had actually already expired on May 1, 2014 by its own terms.
    3
    In February of 2016, Zweifel’s company filed a trademark infringement claim in
    federal court, alleging that Smith’s company was continuing to use his company’s name in
    violation of the parties’ agreement. While that case was pending, the two-year non-
    compete in the 2014 Settlement and Judgment expired on July 25, 2016.          The parties
    agreed this meant that they were no longer prohibited from signing up or servicing new
    residential customers in the other’s zip codes. But it became evident that they disagreed
    about whether they could also begin to compete for the existing residential accounts that
    had been awarded to the other party. It appears Zweifel believed that once the non-
    solicitation and non-compete expired, all customers were fair game and he sent a “We
    Want You Back” letter to customer accounts that had been awarded to Smith. It appears
    Smith disagreed, and believed there was a permanent non-compete on the existing
    customer accounts each was awarded. She asserted an affirmative defense of unclean
    hands in the federal trademark infringement case based on the “We Want You Back” letter
    and Zweifel’s continued service of the 72 residential customers that contacted him years
    earlier. Smith also filed another motion for contempt in state court and a separate request
    for injunctive relief based on that conduct.
    The state court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Zweifel from
    contacting, soliciting or providing services to “any of the customers and/or accounts
    awarded to [Smith]” in either 2012 or 2014. On Zweifel’s motion to clarify, the TRO was
    modified to provide that Zweifel was permitted to respond to a specific list of customers
    who contacted him after the “We Want You Back” letter by notifying them that he could
    not service their accounts at this time and could not discuss the matter further. The TRO,
    4
    as modified, was converted to a preliminary injunction on November 18, 2016, after a
    hearing.
    Smith then amended her latest motion for contempt in October of 2017. Zweifel
    asserted affirmative defenses, one of which was that any claims in this motion for contempt
    relating to his continued servicing of the 72 customers were precluded under principles of
    res judicata because they were previously fully adjudicated in the proceedings to resolve
    the parties’ earlier cross-motions for contempt, which resulted in the 2014 Settlement and
    Judgment. Zweifel also filed counterclaims for, among other things, damages based on
    improvidently granted injunctive relief. A bench trial was held over the course of several
    days in February, March and April of 2018.
    Shortly after the contempt trial ended in state court but before a decision was
    reached, the federal court ruled on the trademark infringement case. It entered judgment
    finding that Smith had infringed by using the “Lawn Managers” name and, in assessing
    damages, concluded that Zweifel did not have unclean hands because the non-competition
    provision had expired by the time he sent the “We Want You Back” letter. Zweifel sought
    to have the state court reopen the evidence in the contempt case, arguing that this federal
    judgment must be given collateral estoppel effect and precluded the state court from finding
    him in contempt for conduct the federal court found was permissible.        That motion to
    reopen was denied.
    In November of 2018, the court entered the judgment that is now on appeal,
    granting the amended motion for contempt and denying all defenses and counterclaims. It
    concluded that Section 5.02 of the 2012 MSA and Judgment—dividing the commercial
    and residential accounts and accounts receivable—was a division of business assets, which
    5
    like any division of marital property, is “not subject to modification.” The court concluded
    that the parties have and “will continue to have, in perpetuity, a property interest” in the
    customer accounts awarded to each of them in 2012 and 2014. The court found the 2012
    MSA and Judgment and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment obligated Zweifel “to only
    service zip code accounts that were awarded as property to [him]. . . and not to service zip
    code accounts awarded as property to [Smith].” The non-solicitation and non-competition
    provisions therein, it concluded, applied only to “new business” and not the customer
    accounts awarded in the division of property. Once those provisions expired, the court
    found, the parties were permitted to solicit new business in any zip code, but could not
    “solicit the customer accounts awarded to the parties” in 2012 and 2014. Thus, the court
    held Zweifel in contempt for servicing existing residential accounts in Smith’s zip codes
    and soliciting Smith’s existing residential accounts with the “We Want You Back” letter—
    all in violation of the 2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment.
    The court also found that since 2014, Zweifel solicited, signed up and serviced new
    residential accounts in zip codes awarded to Smith in violation of the non-compete in the
    2014 Settlement and Judgment. The court found Zweifel’s conduct to be intentional and
    contumacious. The court ordered him to pay Smith damages in the amount of $415,381.72,
    based on her lost profits, and attorney fees. This appeal follows.
    Scope of Appeal
    Zweifel raises six points of error in which he challenges various aspects of the
    contempt judgment on different theories. We note at the outset that this appeal does not
    involve commercial accounts, as all of the conduct the court held was contemptuous related
    to residential customers. It does not involve Zweifel’s conduct with respect to new
    6
    residential accounts: Zweifel has not raised any point on appeal challenging the court’s
    finding that while the non-compete in the 2014 Settlement and Judgment was in effect, he
    solicited, signed up and serviced new residential customers in Smith’s zip codes. Rather,
    all of the issues on appeal relate solely to Zweifel’s soliciting and servicing of residential
    customer accounts that existed at the time of the dissolution and were awarded to Smith.
    In his first point on appeal, Zweifel contends the federal trademark judgment was
    a conclusive determination that he was permitted to send the “We Want You Back” letter
    to the Smith’s customers after the expiration of the two-year non-compete in the 2014
    Settlement and Judgment, which he claims is dispositive of the issue of whether Smith had
    a permanent non-compete as to those customers and whether sending the letter violated
    such a provision. In his fourth point on appeal, he similarly contends that any claims
    regarding his servicing of the 72 customers who came to him had been fully and
    conclusively resolved in his favor by the 2014 Settlement and Judgment and could not be
    re-litigated in this later motion for contempt. In essence, Zwefiel asserts that these two
    previous adjudications are dispositive of the issues and claims here and require a finding
    by this Court that his conduct in sending the letter and servicing those 72 customer accounts
    did not violate the 2012 MSA and Judgment or the 2014 Settlement and Judgment. We
    disagree that such a definitive finding of “no contempt” is appropriate here. Rather, we
    agree with Zweifel’s alternative basis for reversal, set out in his second point on appeal:
    that the provision of the 2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment
    are too vague and indefinite as to his obligations regarding the existing customer accounts
    awarded to Smith for him to be held in contempt thereof. Granting the second point on
    appeal, renders his third and fifth points on appeal moot. In his sixth and final point on
    7
    appeal, Zweifel argues that if we reverse, we must also deem the preliminary injunction to
    have been improvidently granted, which we do not believe is warranted here.
    Discussion
    We take the points on appeal somewhat out of order, beginning with the preclusive
    effect of certain prior judgments on the issues and claims in this matter. The underlying
    question as to whether an issue is barred by a prior judgment is a question of law. See
    Bresnahan v. May Department Stores Company 
    726 S.W.2d 327
    , 329 (Mo. banc 1987).
    Otherwise, our review of the contempt judgment is the same as in any court-tried matter:
    we will affirm a civil contempt judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support
    the decision, the decision is against the weight of the evidence or the decision erroneously
    declares or applies the law. Wuebbeling v. Wuebbeling, 
    574 S.W.3d 317
    , 327 (Mo. App.
    E.D. 2019). “Further, this Court will not reverse the trial court’s ruling on a civil contempt
    motion absent a clear abuse of discretion.” 
    Id. Preclusion Zweifel
    contends the judgment entered in his company’s federal trademark
    infringement case against Smith’s company conclusively determined the meaning of the
    2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment and precluded a different
    finding about the obligations thereunder by the trial court in this contempt case. 3 The claim
    of infringement in the federal case was based on Smith’s continued use of Zweifel’s
    company name. 4 Smith asserted the affirmative defense of unclean hands, claiming that
    3
    Smith notes that Zweifel moved this Court on appeal to suspend the briefing schedule while the federal
    court’s judgment is pending on appeal, raising the same collateral estoppel arguments raised in this point.
    We denied that motion without explanation and do not consider that denial to be determinative of the merits
    of whether the federal judgment has a preclusive effect on this issue.
    4
    The record before us regarding the federal trademark case consists solely of the federal court’s judgment
    and memorandum opinion and the proposed findings and conclusions submitted to the federal court by both
    parties in that case. The appendix to Smith’s brief contains additional pleadings purportedly filed in that
    8
    Zweifel’s solicitation of customers in her zip codes in July of 2016—namely, sending the
    “We Want You Back” letter—was a violation of the 2014 non-compete and should bar his
    trademark infringement claim. In its judgment, the federal court addressed the unclean
    hands defense only in the context of assessing damages:
    The Court previously stated it would consider [Smith’s] unclean hands
    defense when assessing damages. [Smith] claims that [Zweifel’s]
    advertisement to customers in [her] zip code areas in July 2016 sullied [his]
    hands in this suit. Under Missouri law, the protection of customer accounts,
    lists, or relationships is assumed to be limited in duration, unless a party
    demonstrates “unequivocally” that both parties intended it to run
    perpetually. See, e.g., Armstrong Business Services, Inc. v. H & R Block,
    
    96 S.W.3d 867
    , 875 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). Rather than any such indicator
    of perpetual intent, both the 2012 [MSA and Judgment] and the 2014
    [Settlement and] Judgment expressly limited the non-solicitation and non-
    compete provisions to a term of years. Accordingly, [Zweifel] was entitled
    to renew advertising to customers following the expiration of the 2014
    [Settlement and] Judgment’s non-compete provision in July 2016, and this
    advertisement did not sully [his] hands in a suit for trademark infringement.
    [Smith] produced no other evidence to support a finding that [Zweifel] acted
    inequitably toward it as to the trademark at issue.
    Collateral estoppel—or issue preclusion, as it is known in modern terms—
    precludes the same parties (or those in privity with them) from re-litigating an issue that
    was previously adjudicated. U-Haul Company of Missouri v. Carter, 
    567 S.W.3d 680
    ,
    684–85 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). For collateral estoppel to apply, the prior action must have
    necessarily and unambiguously resolved the same question presented in the second
    proceeding. 
    Id. at 685;
    see also Trow v. Worley 
    40 S.W.3d 417
    , 422 (Mo App. S.D. 2001).
    The overriding factor is a consideration of whether it would be fair to apply collateral
    estoppel in this particular case. James v. Paul, 
    49 S.W.3d 678
    , 688 (Mo. banc 2001). The
    case, but those documents are not part of the record in this appeal and are not made part of the record simply
    by including them in the appendix. We do not consider documents in an appendix that are not in the record
    on appeal. Washington v. Blackburn, 
    286 S.W.3d 818
    , 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).
    9
    analysis must focus primarily on principles of equity derived from the facts of each case,
    and collateral estoppel will not be applied where to do so would be inequitable. Id.; see
    also Wilkes v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 
    92 S.W.3d 116
    , 123 (Mo.
    App. E.D. 2002).
    It would not be fair to apply collateral estoppel in this case. The contempt and
    trademark infringement cases were proceeding simultaneously, and both the federal and
    the state court took pains to ensure that nothing they did in one case improperly impacted
    the other. The federal court found it was permitted to interpret the provisions of the 2012
    MSA and Judgment and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment, stating it was doing so under
    principles of Missouri contract law and consistently with federal trademark law and the
    parties’ intentions. But, it also expressly stated that it was “not the proper forum to re-
    litigate Smith’s and Zweifel’s divorce proceedings or otherwise encroach on the state
    court’s jurisdiction over domestic matters” and that “nothing in this Court’s decision
    purports to set aside or alter” the terms of the 2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014
    Settlement and Judgment. Likewise, the state court in the contempt case stated—in its
    denial of the motion to reopen evidence and in its final judgment in this case—that
    “[n]othing in this Court’s decision purports to set aside or alter” the federal court’s
    judgment.
    Moreover, the federal court did not assess Zweifel’s conduct in the context of
    whether it was contemptuous. As discussed in greater detail later in this opinion, one
    cannot be held in contempt of a court order unless that order is “so definite and specific as
    to leave no reasonable basis for doubt of its meaning.” 
    Wuebbeling, 574 S.W.3d at 327
    –
    28.   The federal court did not analyze the 2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014
    10
    Settlement and Judgment under this strict standard and therefore the conclusions that court
    drew about the provisions therein—and whether Zweifel’s conduct was permitted
    thereunder—do not unambiguously answer the identical question presented to the contempt
    court.    Fairness dictates that those conclusions should not supplant the state court’s
    examination of what precisely was prohibited in that court’s judgments and whether
    Zweifel was in contempt. Under these circumstances, it would be inequitable for us to give
    the federal judgment preclusive effect and hold that it is dispositive of whether the 2012
    MSA and Judgment and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment permitted sending the “We
    Want You Back” letter.
    Point I is denied.
    In a similar argument, Zweifel contends Smith should have been barred under the
    doctrine of res judicata (also known as claim preclusion) from re-litigating claims relating
    to the 72 customers who he began servicing after 2012 when they approached him. He
    contends all such claims were resolved by the 2014 Settlement and Judgment reflecting
    resolution of their 2013 cross-motions for contempt. Of course, those earlier proceedings
    addressed only the conduct that occurred prior to the 2014 Settlement and Judgment; the
    current motion for contempt alleged that he continued servicing those 72 customers after
    the 2014 Settlement and Judgment. Zweifel’s argument as to why Smith is precluded from
    litigating these claims is difficult to follow, but appears to be premised on the notion that
    he somehow was awarded those 72 customer accounts during the proceedings on those
    2013 cross motions for contempt. He claims to have “already had” those 72 customer
    accounts at the time the parties settled those motions and by virtue of that settlement, Smith
    agreed she had been fully compensated for any claim relating to those customers. Thus,
    11
    the argument continues, he was not violating the 2014 Settlement and Judgment when he
    continued to service the “accounts that he had” at that time and “retained after that date.”
    Zweifel has pointed to nothing in the record that indicates these 72 customers became
    Zweifel’s property at any point—prior to, during or after the 2014 Settlement and
    Judgment—and the argument based on that unsupported factual assertion is therefore
    without merit.
    Point IV is denied.
    Contempt
    Alternative to his argument that the above judgments compel the conclusion that
    Zweifel’s conduct was permissible under the 2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014
    Settlement and Judgment, he contends his conduct was not clearly and unambiguously
    prohibited thereunder and thus he could not be held in contempt of those judgments. We
    agree that there was no explicit directive in the 2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014
    Settlement and Judgment regarding the parties’ obligations with respect to existing
    residential customers, which required the trial court to find a prohibition of Zweifel’s
    conduct by implication. The court did not have authority to hold him contempt under these
    circumstances.
    “Contempt is available only where a party has been ordered to perform or not to
    perform a specific act and yet refuses to do so.” State ex rel. Euclid Plaza Associates,
    L.L.C. v. Mason, 
    81 S.W.3d 573
    , 577 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). Our Court recently reiterated
    the limitations on a court’s authority to hold a party in contempt of a court order,
    concluding that “clarity in the order itself is essential so the process may comport with
    fundamental principles of fairness”:
    12
    To support a charge of contempt for disobedience of a judgment, decree or
    order, the court’s pronouncement may not be expanded by implication in
    the contempt proceeding and must be so definite and specific as to leave no
    reasonable basis for doubt of its meaning. Before a court may impose
    sanctions on a party for disobeying a court order, the order itself must
    precisely advise the individual of what conduct is forbidden.
    
    Wuebbeling, 574 S.W.3d at 328
    (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus,
    the finding of contempt must be predicated on a clear, unambiguous and express directive
    of the court explicitly mandating or prohibiting the conduct at issue. See 
    id. at 328-29.
    If
    the provision on which the contempt court relies is too vague, any mandate for or
    prohibition against the conduct at issue could only be found by implication. See 
    id. at 328-
    30. Expanding an earlier pronouncement by implication exceeds the court’s authority in a
    contempt proceeding, and a contempt judgment that relies on such an implication must be
    reversed. See id.; see also Missouri Hospital Association v. Air Conservation Commission,
    
    900 S.W.2d 263
    , 267 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995).
    Here, Zweifel does not challenge the court’s findings regarding the conduct he
    engaged in—namely, that he solicited and serviced existing residential accounts awarded
    to Smith in 2012 and 2014—only the conclusion that this conduct violated a clear and
    unambiguous provision of either of those judgments. According to the trial court, the
    parties were forever prohibited from soliciting or servicing those accounts. The court’s
    conclusion that such a prohibition existed appears to have been derived from a series of
    inferences drawn from the actual language of the judgment. The court began by finding
    the existing residential customer accounts were business assets and were properly divided
    as marital property in Section 5.02 of the 2012 MSA and Judgment. Therefore, like any
    other division of property, the court found it was not subject to modification. It appears
    the court then concluded that the non-modifiable nature of a division of marital property
    13
    equated to the parties having “in perpetuity, a property interest” in the accounts they were
    awarded. The court also construed the two-year non-solicitation provision in the 2012
    MSA and Judgment as applicable only to “new business,” and noted that the two-year non-
    compete in the 2014 Settlement and Judgment was expressly applicable only to new
    accounts. The court then seems to have implied—from both the perpetual property interest
    and its conclusion that the two-year non-solicitation and non-competition provisions only
    applied to new business—that there was a permanent ban on the parties’ ability to ever
    compete for each other’s existing customer accounts.
    None of the provisions relied on by the court to reach this conclusion contain a
    clear, unambiguous and express directive that explicitly and permanently prohibits
    solicitation and servicing of the existing residential accounts awarded to the other party.
    In Section 5.02 in the 2012 MSA and Judgment, the parties agreed to give each other “all
    right, title and interest” in certain customer accounts. Even assuming “customer accounts”
    have value and are capable of division like other business assets, that fact does not
    necessarily mean that they must be treated like other business assets for all intents and
    purposes. Contrary to Smith’s claim that the division of accounts is analogous to the
    division of the lawn care company’s vehicles, it is at least arguable that there are
    fundamental differences between an award of an inanimate object like a truck and an award
    of customer account, which necessarily involved a relationship with another person. An
    award of a business asset like a truck may be permanent in the sense that the other party
    would be forever barred from taking it back, but it is at least reasonable to doubt that the
    same is true with an award of a business relationship. A truck, of course, has no interest in
    or ability to decide who owns it, but the customers whose accounts were awarded to these
    14
    parties do have an interest in who services their lawns—an interest recognized by the court
    when it found that the 2012 MSA and Judgment did not prohibit the customers awarded to
    Smith and Zweifel from seeking out lawn care services from companies other than the
    parties’ companies.    In short, there is a reasonable basis to doubt what was meant by the
    award of these accounts in Section 5.02 and whether it included a perpetual property
    interest to the parties in the existing customer accounts and an attending permanent ban on
    efforts to regain those customer’s business.
    Smith cites a provision in the 2012 MSA and Judgment in which the parties agreed
    that if either of them “wishes to sell” any of the accounts referenced in Section 5.02, they
    “will give the other party the first opportunity to purchase the accounts that are up for sale.”
    She then asks why such a provision would be included if the parties did not intend to have
    a perpetual property interest in the accounts awarded to them in Section 5.02. She also
    cites to an administrative provision of the 2012 MSA and Judgment containing the
    following language: “This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, representatives, and
    assigns of the parties except as to the specific paragraphs that contain provisions for
    termination of obligations on the death of either party.” And, again, she asks why such a
    provision would be included if the parties did not intend to have a property right over the
    accounts awarded to them in perpetuity in Section 5.02. Beyond positing the questions,
    Smith has not demonstrated that these provisions contain a clear and unambiguous
    permanent prohibition on competition with the existing residential customer accounts
    awarded to each party in Section 5.02
    Likewise, there is considerable reason to doubt that by expressly imposing a two-
    year ban on solicitation and competition for new accounts in the 2012 MSA and Judgment
    15
    and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment, there was an intent to impose a permanent ban on
    such conduct with respect to the existing accounts awarded to each other. One simply does
    not necessarily follow from the other. If the non-solicitation and non-compete only apply
    to new customers, then it is at least arguable that rather than implying a permanent ban on
    competing for existing customer, there was no such ban on competition for those customers
    at any point. If there was never any such restriction, then one could argue that the day after
    the customers were divided in Section 5.02 of the 2012 MSA and Judgment, the parties
    were entitled to immediately compete for their business. As much as there is reason to
    doubt the existence of a permanent ban on competition for these accounts, there would be
    equal reason to doubt that no ban existed either. Neither of these extremes—both of which
    are possible under the trial court’s interpretation—is supported by the actual language in
    the 2012 MSA and Judgment or the 2014 Settlement and Judgment. Because the judgments
    do not clearly and unambiguously set forth any particular directive with respect to one
    party’s conduct with the existing customer accounts awarded to the other, the court’s
    permanent prohibition on competition with those customers was imposed by implication.
    It was impermissible to hold Zweifel in contempt of that implied provision.               See
    
    Wuebbeling, 574 S.W.3d at 328
    .
    Importantly, we note that we are not tasked in this appeal with clarifying any of the
    doubts discussed herein. Nor should anything in the above discussion be taken as a
    dispositive conclusion about the actual meaning of the 2012 MSA and Judgment or the
    2014 Settlement and Judgment. Rather, we are faced with a much narrower question in
    determining the propriety of this contempt judgment: whether the provisions of the 2012
    MSA and Judgment or the 2014 Settlement and Judgment were specific and definite
    16
    enough such that Zweifel could be held in contempt thereof. Our conclusion on that
    question is that they were not and therefore it was error to hold him in contempt for
    soliciting and servicing the existing residential accounts awarded to Smith. In other words,
    we do not conclude that Zweifel’s conduct was permissible under the 2012 MSA and
    Judgment or the 2014 Settlement and Judgment—only that the judgments are too vague
    for the trial court to have determined that the conduct was contemptuous.
    Point II is granted. The judgment must be reversed to the extent it holds Zweifel in
    contempt for soliciting and servicing existing customer accounts awarded to Smith in the
    2012 MSA and Judgment and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment. Reversal of that finding
    of contempt renders the following points on appeal moot: Point III (challenging the award
    of damages based on that contempt finding) and Point V (challenging the evidence of a
    factual matter underlying that contempt finding).
    Improvidently Granted Injunctive Relief
    Zweifel filed in the trial court a counterclaim to the motion for contempt, claiming
    the preliminary injunction was improvidently granted and seeking damages. He argues
    that “if this Court rules that Smith never had a permanent, perpetual non-compete,” then
    that means the preliminary injunction was improvidently granted and the matter must be
    remanded to the trial court to dissolve that injunction and determine his damages. A
    definitive holding that Smith did not have a permanent non-compete and therefore
    Zweifel’s conduct was permissible under the judgments might have, as Zweifel suggests,
    automatically resulted in a conclusion that the injunction prohibiting that conduct was
    improvidently granted and is therefore dissolved. See generally Citizens for Ground Water
    Protection v. Porter, 
    275 S.W.3d 329
    , 352 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (when party procuring
    17
    temporary injunctive relief ultimately receives an adverse judgment on the merits of the
    case, the issuance of the injunction is deemed improper and is dissolved). But we have not
    made any definitive conclusions about the meaning of the 2012 MSA and Judgment or the
    2014 Settlement and Judgment. Again, our conclusion is that those judgments were not
    clear as to the parties’ obligations and restrictions regarding the existing residential
    customers awarded to each of them. While this conclusion means that Zweifel cannot be
    held in contempt of the 2012 MSA and Judgment or the 2014 Settlement and Judgment,
    that is not the same as a dispositive holding that his conduct was permissible under those
    judgments. Zweifel has not cited any authority that would support deeming the preliminary
    injunction improvident and dissolving it under these circumstances.
    Point VI is denied.
    Conclusion
    The judgment is reversed to the extent it holds Zweifel in contempt for soliciting
    and servicing existing customer accounts awarded to Smith in the 2012 MSA and Judgment
    and the 2014 Settlement and Judgment.
    ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge
    Robert M. Clayton III, P.J. and
    Roy L. Richter, J., concur.
    18