165 Conn. App. 626
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Thomas and Britt Brochard divorced by memorandum of decision dated July 6, 2011; court awarded the marital home to Britt and ordered Thomas to pay alimony; mortgage remained solely in Thomas’s name.
- Judge Gordon (Aug 12, 2011) directed that Thomas provide a specific authorization permitting Britt to act with authority to converse, negotiate, and enter into agreements with the mortgagee to pursue modification/mediation (more than mere ‘‘converse and negotiate’’ language).
- Multiple authorization forms were exchanged in 2011; some gave only access to information, one (unsigned) granted "full and complete authority to negotiate, agree, and execute," and a September 1, 2011 form attempted to limit Thomas’s additional exposure.
- Britt filed a contempt motion (Nov 13, 2013) claiming Thomas failed to provide the authorization ordered by Gordon. Judge Munro (Nov 14, 2013) declined to rule then and said a longer evidentiary hearing was needed.
- Subsequent judges (Munro, Gould) made inconsistent statements about whether the authorization issue had been decided; Judge Gould ultimately denied the contempt motion in a Sept 28, 2015 memorandum, finding Thomas had provided an authorization; Britt appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any trial judge had actually decided on the adequacy of the authorization | Munro’s comments showed the issue was resolved and authorization provided; later rulings incorporated that view | Munro explicitly deferred and said a further hearing was required; no judge ruled on the adequacy on the merits | Court held no prior judge ruled on the merits; Munro explicitly deferred, so issue remained undecided |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before resolving the contempt claim | Not argued that a new hearing occurred; plaintiff relied on earlier proceedings | Complex factual/legal issue (scope needed from mortgagee) requiring a trial-like evidentiary hearing | Court held an evidentiary hearing was required and none was held; failure to hold one was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the authorizations in the record complied with Judge Gordon’s August 12, 2011 order | Plaintiff contended he provided an authorization (Sept 1, 2011) that satisfied the order without expanding liability | Defendant argued none of the proffered forms met Gordon’s directive that she be authorized to "converse, negotiate, enter into an agreement" in a way sufficient to obtain modification | Court did not decide adequacy on the merits because no proper hearing occurred; remanded for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether Judge Gould abused discretion by denying contempt based on a mistaken procedural belief | Plaintiff asserted Gould appropriately relied on prior rulings and the record showing an authorization was provided | Defendant argued Gould ruled from a mistaken view that matter had been previously decided and denied opportunity to be heard | Court held Gould abused his discretion by concluding the issue was decided without a hearing and reversed the denial as to the authorization contempt claim |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (legal standard for contempt; two-step inquiry: clarity of order then discretionary contempt determination)
- Mekrut v. Suits, 147 Conn. App. 794 (contempt outside presence requires competent sworn evidence; trial-like hearing if facts disputed)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 88 Conn. App. 442 (denial of contempt without hearing can be abuse of discretion)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (parties must seek clarification of ambiguous judgments)
- O’Halpin v. O’Halpin, 144 Conn. App. 671 (appellant bears burden to provide transcript when claiming court addressed issue at transcripted hearing)
- Cianbro Corp. v. National Eastern Corp., 102 Conn. App. 61 (same transcript rule)
- Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Voltarc Technologies, Inc., 263 Conn. 204 (appellate discretion to hear late motions when no jurisdictional defect)