148 Conn. App. 267
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Terry Aliano (plaintiff) and Michael Aliano (defendant) divorced after a bifurcated trial; the dissolution judgment included a paragraph ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $100,000 "within 30 days of his receiving his inheritance so long as such receipt is in excess of $250,000."
- The defendant was expected to inherit a substantial portion of his deceased father's estate (estimated ~$10 million) that included closely held business interests; probate litigation over the estate was ongoing.
- The plaintiff moved for contempt after learning the Probate Court distributed 50% of the stock of an ambulance company to the defendant (valued at $2,350,000), contending this triggered the $250,000 threshold and required a $100,000 payment.
- At the contempt hearing the defendant testified he received stock (no cash), had no $100,000 in liquid assets, and believed the obligation triggered only on receipt of liquid assets; plaintiff produced no evidence the stock was liquid or marketable.
- The trial court denied contempt, initially made and then vacated some dicta, and later issued an articulation finding the order ambiguous as to whether the $250,000 must be cash or liquid assets, crediting the defendant’s good‑faith belief and his inability to pay.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that even assuming the order was unambiguous, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no wilful noncompliance because the defendant lacked the ability to pay and reasonably believed the condition required liquid assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution order was clear enough to support contempt | Order is clear: once defendant receives > $250,000 of inheritance, he must pay $100,000 | The order should be read to require receipt of liquid/convertible assets (cash or marketable securities) before payment | Even assuming clarity, court did not abuse discretion in denying contempt; defendant’s lack of liquid funds and good‑faith interpretation excused noncompliance |
| Whether defendant wilfully violated the order | Nonpayment after receiving > $250,000 in estate assets was wilful | Nonpayment was not wilful because defendant received only noncash stock, had no $100,000, and reasonably believed trigger required cash | No wilful disobedience: trial court credited testimony that defendant lacked ability to pay and had a reasonable, good‑faith misunderstanding |
| Whether inability to pay is a defense to civil contempt | Plaintiff contends condition satisfied so inability irrelevant | Defendant asserts inability to pay (no cash) is a valid defense to contempt | Trial court’s finding of inability to pay was supported by evidence and is a valid basis to deny civil contempt |
| Whether trial court improperly modified the dissolution judgment during hearing | Plaintiff argues court effectively altered terms by requiring liquidity | Court says it did not change judgment and later vacated any dicta; modification not found | Appellate court defers to trial court’s action and articulation; no improper modification shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (2007) (two‑step framework for reviewing contempt: clarity of order de novo; abuse of discretion for wilfulness/facts)
- Hardy v. Superior Court, 305 Conn. 824 (2012) (definition and nature of civil contempt)
- Ahmadi v. Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384 (2009) (inability to obey a court order is a defense to contempt when not the contemnor's fault)
- Behrns v. Behrns, 124 Conn. App. 794 (2010) (good‑faith dispute about terms may preclude a finding of wilful nonpayment)
- Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318 (2009) (noncompliance alone does not mandate a contempt finding; inability to comply may excuse)
- Lashgari v. Lashgari, 197 Conn. 189 (1985) (judgment construction governed by court’s intent and surrounding circumstances)