177 Conn. App. 599
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Marriage dissolved in 2008; court ordered plaintiff to pay $4,000/week alimony and divide assets including a Charles Schwab account; defendant withdrew her direct appeal in 2009.
- Plaintiff successfully moved in 2009 to modify alimony; trial court reduced payments; defendant cross‑appealed and Appellate Court reversed the modification, directing denial of the motion.
- Postjudgment proceedings addressed alimony arrearage, valuation of the Schwab account (trial court initially valued it as of the date defendant withdrew appeals), and award of postjudgment interest; Appellate Court reversed the Schwab valuation and remanded for valuation as of dissolution date.
- On remand the trial court vacated prior awards of postjudgment interest tied to the modified alimony and to the earlier (erroneous) Schwab valuation, then later awarded new postjudgment interest at 4% from specific dates (Sept. 30, 2014 for Schwab; April 7, 2014 for alimony arrearage).
- Defendant sold marital real estate and failed to escrow proceeds above $300,000 despite an oral trial court directive to do so; the court later clarified the escrow requirement and held defendant in contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court exceeded remand mandate by vacating prior awards of postjudgment interest | Trial court followed mandate; vacating judgments tied to modified alimony and erroneous Schwab valuation required vacating associated interest awards | Vacating interest exceeded mandate because interest awards were separate and should have remained | Court: Vacating interest was proper because those awards were inextricably intertwined with judgments reversed on appeal and remand restored the parties to pre‑judgment status |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding postjudgment interest (start dates and 4% rate) | Court properly considered § 37‑3a factors, plaintiff’s history of nonpayment, and delay in final valuation; 4% within discretion | Defendant argued interest should run from earlier dates (e.g., 2009) and at presumptive 10% (and compound) to fully compensate her | Court: No abuse of discretion; interest dates (Sept. 30, 2014 for Schwab; April 7, 2014 for arrearage) and 4% rate were reasonable under § 37‑3a; compounding not required |
| Whether contempt finding was improper because underlying order was unclear | Plaintiff argued clear oral order required escrow of proceeds over $300,000; defendant willfully failed to escrow | Defendant argued written order did not mention escrow and she reasonably relied on it | Court: Oral order at hearing was clear and unambiguous; defendant present and warned that written order omitted some oral directives; contempt finding affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 298 Conn. 371 (2010) (scope of appellate mandate and effect of vacating a judgment)
- Bruno v. Bruno, 132 Conn. App. 341 (2011) (appellate reversal of alimony modification and Schwab account valuation)
- Sosin v. Sosin, 300 Conn. 205 (2011) (trial court’s broad discretion under § 37‑3a to fix start date and rate of postjudgment interest)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 310 Conn. 38 (2013) (wrongful detention under § 37‑3a established by favorable judgment; appellate‑period withholding irrelevant)
- Picton v. Picton, 111 Conn. App. 143 (2008) (§ 37‑3a interest accrues after money becomes payable by judgment)
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (2007) (two‑step contempt review: order clarity de novo; willfulness and abuse of discretion review)
- DeCecco v. Beach, 174 Conn. 29 (1977) (application of unclean hands within trial court’s equitable discretion)