132 Conn. App. 430
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Dissolution of marriage in 2007; May 2 judgment incorporated separation agreement.
- Postjudgment contempt motions filed July 7 and August 5, 2010 regarding enforcement of 2010 orders.
- Plaintiff relocated to Vienna, Austria; defendant mailed contempt motions to plaintiff's counsel rather than serving plaintiff personally.
- Trial court dismissed for insufficiency of service; reasoned postjudgment contempt requires personal service.
- Court held contempt proceedings not properly instituted by mailing to counsel; due process requires personal notice.
- Appellant argues counsel-of-record status under Practice Book § 3-9(c) keeps jurisdiction; appellee contends 180-day withdrawal rule applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postjudgment contempt requires personal service. | Alldred | Alldred | Yes; personal service required |
| Whether service by mailing to counsel suffices when contemnor resides abroad. | Alldred | Alldred | No; not sufficient |
| Whether ongoing 180-day withdrawal rule affects postjudgment contempt service. | Alldred | Alldred | 180-day rule does not validate mailing to counsel for postjudgment contempt |
| Whether the form and classification of contempt motions (pendente lite vs postjudgment) impact proper service. | Alldred | Alldred | Postjudgment motions require proper service distinct from pendente lite |
Key Cases Cited
- Jimenez v. DeRosa, 109 Conn. App. 332 (Conn. App. 2008) (improper service requires dismissal)
- Kim v. Magnotta, 249 Conn. 94 (Conn. 1999) (due process requires proper personal notice)
- Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 197 Conn. 141 (Conn. 1985) (civil contempt requires notice and opportunity to defend)
- Cato v. Cato, 27 Conn. App. 142 (Conn. App. 1992) (long-arm service considerations in family matters)
- Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Milazzo, 287 Conn. 379 (Conn. 2008) (long-arm and service principles in contempt context)