191 Conn.App. 293
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Marriage dissolved in 2011; parties share three children and joint legal custody; children primarily reside with defendant but father has every-other-weekend parenting time.
- The parties executed a stipulation on April 11, 2017, made an order of the court, containing: scheduled parenting time and paragraph 4.2 requiring the "custodial parent" who cannot be with the children to make arrangements unless the other parent agrees in writing; and paragraph 5.1 requiring the parties to share 50/50 in a $6,000 motor vehicle purchase (defendant to hold title until youngest graduates).
- After entry of the stipulation, the defendant moved for contempt (May 9, 2017) alleging the plaintiff refused to take the children and refused to make alternative arrangements during his parenting time; she later moved for contempt (Aug. 23, 2017) alleging plaintiff failed to pay $3,000 toward the vehicle.
- The trial court (Aug. 8, 2017) found plaintiff in contempt for not arranging care during his parenting time; (Oct. 19, 2017) found him in contempt for failing to pay $3,000; sanctions and attorney’s fees were awarded for the vehicle contempt but none for the parenting-time contempt due to lack of proof of costs.
- Plaintiff filed motions to articulate/modify and a separate motion for contempt (Sept. 19, 2017) which the court denied as barred by res judicata; plaintiff also moved to modify child support (July 31, 2017) alleging substantial income loss, which the court denied (Nov. 21, 2017) after finding his evidence not credible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph 4.2 was sufficiently clear to support contempt for failing to arrange care during plaintiff's parenting time | Bolat: paragraph is ambiguous because "custodial parent" doesn't apply to him; he had a good-faith misunderstanding | Bolat (defendant): "custodial parent" means the parent scheduled to have custody at that time; plaintiff knew obligation from canvass | Court: Provision unambiguous in context; contempt affirmed (willful violation proven) |
| Whether plaintiff's Sep. 19, 2017 contempt motion was wrongly denied as res judicata | Bolat: court erred in applying res judicata (bare assertion) | Bolat (defendant): issues were barred; record supports bar | Court: Plaintiff inadequately briefed the claim; appellate review declined |
| Whether paragraph 5.1 was ambiguous or not and whether failure to pay $3,000 was willful | Bolat: 5.1 lacks detail (who buys/when); offered alternatives and requested documents, so not willful | Bolat (defendant): provision requires 50/50 $6,000 purchase; plaintiff refused to pay without justification | Court: 5.1 clear; plaintiff willfully refused to pay; contempt and payment ordered affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff proved a substantial change in circumstances to modify child support | Bolat: near 50% reduction in gross income (laid off; business loss) justifies modification | Bolat (defendant): plaintiff's evidence not credible; transfers to spouse and inconsistent records undermine claim | Court: Factfinder discredited plaintiff's proof; no credible showing of substantial change; modification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (legal standard: clarity of order and contempt review)
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (contract terms construed in context of other provisions)
- Mettler v. Mettler, 165 Conn. App. 829 (contract interpretation; ambiguity principles)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (different party interpretations do not by themselves create ambiguity)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (orders must be obeyed until modified or successfully challenged)
- Budrawich v. Budrawich, 156 Conn. App. 628 (burden to prove substantial change for modification)
- Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316 (trial court credibility findings and appellate deference)
- Nowacki v. Nowacki, 129 Conn. App. 157 (requirement to brief issues adequately on appeal)
- Gabriel v. Gabriel, 324 Conn. 324 (standard of review in domestic relations matters)