Curtis v. Curtis
2012 WL 1172165
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Marital dissolution with two minor children; custody arrangement with plaintiff primary physical custody and defendant joint legal custody; separation agreement/judgment incorporated terms including $2500 unallocated alimony and child support for five years, then guideline-based support
- February 11, 2010 order established 59% defendant / 41% plaintiff share of child care expenses
- August 4, 2010 motion for contempt alleging nonpayment of 59% share and lack of documentation; issues over documentation and notification
- November 29, 2010 hearing: parties resolved insurance and arrears; dispute remained over child care expenses; court ordered 59/41 split and set payment schedule
- Court did not find contempt but ordered reimbursement amount of $3044.10 (59% of $5159.50) and future notification requirements for babysitters
- Appeal followed challenging due process, guideline-based validation of expenses, and unclean hands arguments; Court affirmed the judgment
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant's due process rights were violated by not calling plaintiff as a witness | Curtis was not deprived; no proper request to call witness was made | Court denied right to call plaintiff as witness to probe documentation/notice | No due process violation; claim unpreserved |
| Whether reimbursement order complied with § 46b-215a-2b(h)(2)(A) criteria for child care costs | Expenses were reasonable, necessary, not reimbursed, and within limits | Plaintiff failed to prove reasonableness and proper documentation; guidelines apply | Court properly exercised discretion; no clear error |
| Whether unclean hands barred the contempt-based relief | No improper conduct by plaintiff; doctrine not triggered | Plaintiff violated custody agreement by not notifying him of expenditures | Claim not reviewable on appeal; unclean hands not established |
Key Cases Cited
- GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Glenn, 103 Conn.App. 264 (Conn. App. 2007) (due process and flexibility in procedural requirements)
- Jungnelius v. Jungnelius, 133 Conn. App. 250 (Conn. App. 2012) (great weight given to trial court in equitable matters; sexual discretion standard of review)
- Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 294 Conn. 121 (Conn. 2009) (need for articulation; standard of reviewing lack of reasons on record)
- Balaska v. Balaska, 130 Conn.App. 510 (Conn. App. 2011) (Golding review requirements for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. D'Agostino, 94 Conn.App. 793 (Conn. App. 2006) (broad discretion in applying equity and policy considerations)
- McBurney v. Cirillo, 276 Conn. 782 (Conn. 2006) (ambit of reviewing unpreserved claims; Golding review prerequisites)
- Liberti v. Liberti, 132 Conn.App. 869 (Conn. App. 2012) (preservation and review standards for constitutional claims)
- Golding v. Staple, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (excursus on review of unpreserved constitutional claims)