174 Conn. App. 507
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Co-owners subdivided 55.72 acres; defendants (Medinas) received a 4‑acre lot subject to a deed restriction: “any permanent structure … at least 100 feet distant from the westerly line of Winchester Road.”
- Defendants built a pole barn (without permit) and later a stone wall partly within the 100‑foot setback; plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to enforce the covenant.
- Trial court ordered removal of the pole barn and initially found the stone wall was not a “permanent structure.” Plaintiffs appealed.
- This Court in Avery I held the stone wall was a prohibited permanent structure and remanded with directions to order removal of portions within 100 feet of the road.
- After remand, defendants removed the wall but placed lower stones in the setback; plaintiffs moved for contempt. The trial court found Luis Medina in contempt, ordered removal of the stones, and awarded $1,500 in attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt order impermissibly modified injunction by converting a mandate against permanent structures into a prohibition on any stones | Plaintiffs: subsequent stones in setback reconstituted a prohibited permanent structure and violated the injunction; court may enforce original judgment | Medinas: post‑removal loose stones are not permanent; judge effectively broadened injunction to ban any stones | Court: No modification; order merely effectuated original injunction because the stones were intended to remain and thus were permanent structures |
| Whether underlying order was sufficiently clear to support contempt | Plaintiffs: Avery I and remand order clearly required removal of wall portions within 100 ft | Medinas: remand order vague and did not bar stones generally | Court: Judgment and remand order were clear and unambiguous; contempt supported |
| Whether contempt deprived defendants of a fundamental property right | Plaintiffs: enforcement vindicates a voluntarily accepted deed restriction, not a taking of property | Medinas: prohibition overreaches, effectively excludes use of part of their land | Court: No fundamental right taken; remedy enforces deed restriction defendants signed |
| Whether attorney’s fees award lacked evidentiary support | Plaintiffs: fees requested and previously awarded; entitlement under contempt statute | Medinas: no evidence presented at contempt hearing to support fee award | Court: Claim not reviewable—Medinas failed to object at hearing and thus waived review |
Key Cases Cited
- Avery v. Medina, 151 Conn. App. 433 (Conn. App. 2014) (appellate decision holding the stone wall was a prohibited permanent structure)
- Ciottone v. Ciottone, 154 Conn. App. 780 (Conn. App. 2015) (two‑step contempt review: order clarity de novo, contempt abuse of discretion)
- Edmond v. Foisey, 111 Conn. App. 760 (Conn. App. 2008) (contempt remedy improper where court conveyed defendant’s entire property interest)
- Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456 (Conn. 2004) (failure to object to bare fee request at trial waives appellate review)