Brody v. Brody
145 Conn. App. 654
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Parties married in 2000 after a prenuptial agreement; both were wealthy but defendant’s fund later suffered losses and SEC action. Divorce judgment (Mar. 12, 2010) awarded plaintiff lump‑sum alimony ($2.5M staged), child support ($7,500/mo), healthcare cost reimbursements, and other sums. Postjudgment restraining order froze defendant’s disclosed assets.
- Multiple postjudgment contempt proceedings followed: Nov. 29, 2010 contempt for violating the restraining order; April 28, 2011 contempt for failing to turn over watches; both previously affirmed on appeal.
- On Dec. 9, 2011 the trial court found defendant in contempt for failing to pay $2M in lump‑sum alimony, $15,000 healthcare, and $175,000 Lewis‑loan proceeds. Court found wilfulness based on evidence defendant paid nonessential personal expenses instead of the obligations.
- On Mar. 5, 2012 the court found defendant in contempt for unpaid child support after oral findings describing defendant’s recent rent, car payments, and borrowed funds, but did not expressly find wilfulness.
- On Mar. 12, 2012 the court issued an order of compliance requiring payment of healthcare reimbursement; defendant paid $15,000 on April 9, 2012 and appealed the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dec. 9, 2011 contempt finding was proper | Brody argued nonpayment was wilful; enforcement needed | Brody: inability to pay and asset restraints made nonpayment not wilful | Affirmed — court reasonably found wilfulness because defendant prioritized nonessential spending over obligations |
| Whether Mar. 5, 2012 contempt finding (child support) was proper | Brody sought contempt and payment of arrears | Brody: contested that contempt requires an explicit wilfulness finding; factual disputes about ability to pay | Reversed — trial court abused discretion by failing to make requisite wilfulness finding |
| Whether appeal of Mar. 12, 2012 order of compliance is moot | Brody argued mootness because he paid | Plaintiff: relief still potentially available on appeal | Not moot — appellate relief could be practical; but defendant failed to brief other merits, so court did not reach them |
| Whether inability to pay is a defense to contempt | Plaintiff contended record showed voluntary spending despite reduced income | Brody claimed inability to comply without fault | Court applied established rule: inability to obey without fault is a defense, but here evidence supported wilfulness where voluntary payments to nonessentials occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 111 Conn. App. 413 (2008) (standard of review and contempt requires wilfulness)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523 (1998) (inability to obey without fault is a defense to contempt)
- Scott v. Scott, 90 Conn. App. 883 (2005) (noncompliance alone does not establish contempt; wilfulness required)
- Gray v. Gray, 131 Conn. App. 404 (2011) (appellate scope of review for trial court contempt determinations)
- Brody v. Brody, 136 Conn. App. 773 (prior appeal recounting facts, earlier contempt rulings affirmed)
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Colonial Investment Mgmt., LLC, 659 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (underlying SEC judgment against defendant cited in dissolution proceedings)