Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300

Background

Felicia Pierot Brody sued to dissolve her marriage to Cary Brody; trial court granted dissolution and awarded plaintiff $2.5 million lump-sum alimony.
During the marriage defendant ran Colonial Fund, which suffered losses and an SEC investigation; plaintiff alleged financial misconduct and pursued arbitration, culminating in a settlement releasing the fund and defendant from "any and all claims" arising from her investment.
Trial court found the marriage irretrievably broken largely because of defendant’s dishonesty and credibility problems; the court referenced possible infidelity but dissolved the marriage on irretrievable breakdown and misconduct generally.
Postjudgment, the trial court ordered the defendant to inventory and turn over watches to a bailee; a later bench judge found him in indirect civil contempt after conflicting testimony about his wearing a watch, applying a preponderance standard.
The Appellate Court affirmed the dissolution, the alimony award, and the contempt finding; this Court granted certification limited to (1) whether the alimony rested on an adultery finding, (2) whether the prior release barred alimony claims, and (3) the proper standard of proof for indirect civil contempt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alimony was based on a finding of adultery	Alimony rested on defendant’s dishonesty and overall lack of credibility, not a conclusive adultery finding	Trial court repeatedly referenced probable infidelity and thus based alimony on adultery, requiring stronger proof	Court held alimony was not based on an adultery finding; ambiguous references read in context support finding of irretrievable breakdown due to dishonesty
Whether prior settlement releasing "any and all claims" arising from plaintiff’s investment barred alimony consideration	Release concerned contractual/property claims; alimony is distinct (forward-looking support) and may consider loss of income sources	The release was broad and thus precluded alimony claims tied to the fund misconduct	Court held the release did not bar the trial court from factoring the fund losses into alimony under §46b-82 criteria
Standard of proof for indirect civil contempt	Court should require clear and convincing proof because contempt can carry coercive sanctions and collateral consequences	Appellate precedent applied preponderance; some state cases used lower standards	Court adopted clear and convincing standard for indirect civil contempt and reversed the contempt judgment, remanding for a new hearing
Remedy for applying wrong contempt standard	Plaintiff: any error was harmless because evidence met higher standard	Defendant: wrong standard requires new hearing	Court held appellate tribunal should not reassess credibility; remanded for a new contempt hearing under the clear and convincing standard

Key Cases Cited

Grimm v. Grimm, 276 Conn. 377 (Conn. 2005) (deference to trial court in complex dissolution matters)
Turgeon v. Turgeon, 190 Conn. 269 (Conn. 1983) (adultery proof standards discussed in dissolution context)
Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 197 Conn. 141 (Conn. 1985) (due process safeguards and evidentiary discussion for indirect contempt)
New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 489 (Conn. 2009) (civil contempt characterized and remedies explained)
Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2005) (trial court discretion and §46b-82 alimony factors)
Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 582 (Conn. 1996) (distinction between tort/damages claims and dissolution/alimony claims)
Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (federal authority applying clear and convincing standard in civil contempt)
Goya Foods, Inc. v. Wallack Management Co., 290 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2002) (federal precedent supporting heightened proof for contempt)
In re Birchall, 454 Mass. 837 (Mass. 2009) (Massachusetts decision requiring clear and convincing proof for civil contempt)