200 Conn.App. 771
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Parties entered into a written separation agreement incorporated into a 2014 dissolution judgment: plaintiff agreed to unallocated alimony/child support totaling $200,000/year and a lump-sum property distribution of $485,950 payable in (at least) ten annual installments of $48,595 beginning December 1, 2015.
- Agreement barred plaintiff from opening or investing >$25,000 in a new business unless he was current on his article V (lump-sum) obligations; paragraph 5.1B suspended lump-sum payments during months plaintiff paid article II (home ownership/maintenance) obligations.
- Plaintiff suffered cardiac illness and surgery in 2015 and produced tax returns and affidavits showing his net income fell substantially in 2015–2017; he reduced monthly unallocated payments from $16,666.66 to $10,000 beginning January 2016 and sought modification/suspension of payments.
- Defendant filed multiple contempt motions alleging missed unallocated support payments, failure to make the first lump-sum installment, and that plaintiff invested >$25,000 in a CrossFit franchise in 2015 in breach of the investment restriction.
- Trial court denied plaintiff’s modification requests, found plaintiff in willful contempt for unpaid unallocated support and lump-sum installments, ordered substantial arrearages, fees, and withholding; the court denied contempt on the CrossFit motion but nonetheless found plaintiff had breached the agreement.
- On appeal, the court held the trial court erred by (a) finding willful contempt without addressing plaintiff’s asserted inability to pay and (b) misinterpreting the agreement by finding the CrossFit investment breached the investment restriction (investment occurred before December 1, 2015).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly found plaintiff in willful contempt for reducing unallocated support without resolving his ability to pay | Casiraghi argued he raised and proved inability to pay due to post‑surgery income decline; evidence included tax returns, P&Ls, and financial affidavit | Paula argued the agreement restricted modification and plaintiff remained able to pay under the court’s view and submitted no contrary financial records | Reversed: court abused discretion by not determining ability to pay; finding of willfulness was clearly erroneous and remand ordered for a new hearing on arrearage and remedies |
| Whether trial court properly found plaintiff in willful contempt for failing to make lump-sum installment(s) beginning Dec 1, 2015 (and whether payments were suspended under para. 5.1B) | Casiraghi argued his obligation was suspended while he paid article II home expenses and thus no lump payment was due; also relied on inability-to-pay evidence | Paula contended payments were due and unpaid; trial court treated suspension as inapplicable | Reversed as to contempt and remedial orders: trial court failed to make necessary findings about article II compliance and plaintiff's ability to pay; remand for recalculation and findings |
| Whether plaintiff’s July 2015 investment in CrossFit breached the post-dissolution investment restriction (>$25,000 unless current on article V) | Casiraghi argued the investment occurred in July 2015, before installment payments were due (Dec 1, 2015), so the restriction did not apply | Paula argued the investment exceeded $25,000 and violated the agreement’s prohibition | Reversed finding of breach: contract text unambiguously limits investments when not current on article V obligations; because the earliest installment date was Dec 1, 2015, July 2015 investment did not breach; contempt denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Afkari-Ahmadi v. Fotovat-Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384 (2009) (inability to pay is a defense to contempt)
- Brody v. Brody, 145 Conn. App. 654 (2013) (standards for contempt and requirement that noncompliance be wilful)
- Bauer v. Bauer, 173 Conn. App. 595 (2017) (reiterating inability-to-pay defense in family law contempt context)
- Flaherty v. Flaherty, 120 Conn. App. 266 (2010) (contract/separation agreement interpretation principles)
- Koper v. Koper, 17 Conn. App. 480 (1989) (articulation cannot substitute for necessary findings below)