Buehler v. Buehler
167 A.3d 1108
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Marriage dissolved in 2008; parties share custody of three minor children and were ordered to "share equally in the cost of all extracurricular summer camp and lessons for the children, which are not to be unreasonably incurred."
- Defendant filed a postjudgment motion for contempt (Oct. 7, 2014) alleging plaintiff failed to pay his one-half share of extracurricular expenses and sought payment and sanctions.
- Contempt hearing occurred over four days beginning April 22, 2015, but the appellant provided transcripts for only three of the four days on appeal; the April 22 transcript was missing (only an excerpt of interim orders was in the file).
- Trial court (Colin, J.) denied part of the contempt motion, concluding defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff willfully violated the order and that many extracurricular expenses were not reasonably incurred because they were incurred without a meaningful prior discussion.
- On appeal, defendant argued the court erred in finding the expenses unreasonable; plaintiff argued the record was inadequate because the transcript for April 22 was not provided.
- Appellate court concluded the record was inadequate to review the factual determination about reasonableness (missing transcript of direct and cross-examination), and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was in contempt for failing to pay half of children’s extracurricular expenses | Appellant failed to provide full transcript; appellate review should be declined for inadequate record | Expenses were unreasonably disallowed because there was no meaningful discussion before incurring them; trial court erred | Affirmed: appellate review declined due to incomplete record; trial court’s factual finding on reasonableness not reviewable |
| Whether extracurricular expenses were "reasonably incurred" under the 2008 order | Trial court relied on lack of meaningful prior discussion; plaintiff defended that finding | Defendant argued lack of prior discussion cannot render expenses per se unreasonable | Not reviewed on appeal because factual basis (missing transcript) was unavailable |
| Whether the dissolution order requires consultation before incurring extracurricular expenses | Plaintiff contended order did not require consultation (or scope limited to summer camp/lessons) | Defendant argued order required discussion/consultation prior to incurrence | Not reached: inadequately briefed and inadequately supported in record |
| Whether appellate court should consider legal construction of the order | Plaintiff urged decline due to inadequate record | Defendant sought construction of the order to support contempt claim | Declined: inadequately briefed and record insufficient for factual/legal review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Donald, 325 Conn. 346 (2017) (appellate rules require an adequate record for informed review)
- Crelan v. Crelan, 124 Conn. App. 567 (2010) (appellate court will decline review when essential transcript portions are missing)
- Pryor v. Pryor, 162 Conn. App. 451 (2016) (issues inadequately briefed will not be reviewed)