Behrns v. Behrns, 124 Conn. App. 794

Linda Behms and Ronald Behms separated in 1986; their separation agreement was incorporated into the dissolution decree.
Section 5.3 ties alimony and child support adjustments to CPI or the defendant’s salary changes, whichever is less, but was held not to be self-executing in Behms I.
The defendant stopped paying alimony and child support after 1990; a 2001 postjudgment contempt motion followed.
On remand, Behms II directed reconsideration of alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees, with no explicit contempt finding required at that stage.
In 2008 the trial court found wilful contempt and ordered arrearages, attorney’s fees, interest, and an asset-encumbrance restriction; this appeal ensued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court follow the Behms II remand mandate?	Behms II directed a new hearing on §5.3’s meaning.	The court exceeded the remand and treated contempt improperly.	No reversible error; court complied and any deviation was invitational.
Was the contempt finding within the remand scope proper?	Contempt was warranted given nonpayment after remand guidance.	Contempt authority was limited by remand and ambiguous §5.3.	Court did not abuse discretion; contempt supported by credibility assessments.
Was the arrearage calculated using earning capacity or actual loss?	Arrearages could be based on earning capacity as deemed by the court.	Arrearages should reflect actual lost income; earnings were not properly considered.	Court properly rejected avoidance via alleged loss of salary; relied on valid earning-capacity assessment.
Was attorney’s fees award appropriate under 46b-87 and the agreement?	Fees were authorized for enforcing contempt and were reasonable.	Fees tied to contempt finding; if contempt fails, fees should fail too.	Fees approved as reasonable and tied to enforcement of the overall contempt motion.
Is the interest award on arrearages proper and timely?	Interest may be awarded for wrongful detention of money due.	Law of the case and timing challenge the interest award.	Interest award sustained; not barred by law of the case and properly start date determined by wrongful detention.

Behrns v. Behrns, 80 Conn. App. 286 (2003) (remand for new hearing on meaning of §5.3; not self-executing; affirm other aspects)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523 (1998) (court orders must be complied with until modified; self-help discouraged)
Lawrence v. Lawrence, 92 Conn. App. 212 (2005) (good faith disputes may preclude wilfulness in contempt findings)
Riscica v. Riscica, 101 Conn. App. 199 (2007) (avoid self-help; follow court orders unless modified)
Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (2001) (court orders must be obeyed until modified or successfully challenged)