Dicker v. Dicker
189 Conn. App. 247
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2019Background
- Parties divorced in 2012; judgment incorporated agreement allocating responsibility for children’s unreimbursed medical expenses (defendant pays first $3,720/year) and extracurricular activity fees (plaintiff pays up to $1,200/year per child; thereafter split).
- Multiple postjudgment contempt motions followed for alleged failures to pay medical and activity fees; parties entered two interim orders (May 27, 2014; Aug. 18, 2014) reconciling some expenses.
- November 2016 hearings: court found neither party in contempt and issued a remedial order requiring defendant to provide calculations/documentation for medical expenses and allowing him to deduct undisputed, overdue medical amounts from future activity fee payments (unless disputed in writing).
- March 28, 2017 evidentiary hearing resolved outstanding balances: court found defendant owed plaintiff $3,742.08 (activity fees), plaintiff owed defendant $2,303.59 (medical), and ordered net payment of $1,438.49 to plaintiff.
- Plaintiff moved to reargue and claimed due process violation; trial court denied reargument in part. Plaintiff appealed; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in finding plaintiff owed unreimbursed medical expenses ($2,303.59) | Dicker argued defendant’s medical spreadsheets were unsubstantiated, inconsistent with records, so findings were clearly erroneous | Defendant testified he paid the listed expenses and his HSA/insurance/payment history and spreadsheets corroborate payments; discrepancies explained by timing | Affirmed: appellate court deferred to trial court credibility findings; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying plaintiff’s contempt motion against defendant for withholding activity fee payments | Dicker contended defendant’s knowing/voluntary withholding was wilful contempt (order was clear) | Defendant (and court) said both parties acted under a common belief that withholding was permitted by prior orders | Affirmed: denial of contempt not an abuse; noncompliance alone insufficient when factual basis explains conduct |
| Whether court improperly allowed defendant to deduct undisputed unpaid medical amounts from future activity fee payments | Dicker argued remedial order improperly authorized unilateral self-help and combined unrelated orders | Defendant relied on court’s remedial order and prior rulings authorizing a specified deduction procedure for undisputed, overdue amounts | Affirmed: remedial order clarified ambiguous prior orders; deduction procedure reasonable and not manifestly unreasonable |
| Whether plaintiff was denied due process / improperly denied reargument or chance to present evidence | Dicker claimed she was cut off before resting, deprived meaningful cross-examination and could not present additional evidence of wilfulness | Defendant and court point to lengthy hearings, opportunity to cross-examine, and that plaintiff did not request further time after ruling; alleged additional evidence was outside relevant time period or would not change result | Affirmed: plaintiff had adequate opportunity; court did not abuse discretion in denying reargument or violate due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Chowdhury v. Masiat, 161 Conn. App. 314 (2015) (standard: appellate deference to trial court factual findings and credibility determinations)
- In re Jeffrey C., 261 Conn. 189 (2002) (definition and elements of contempt)
- Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318 (2009) (standard of review for contempt factual findings)
- Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300 (2015) (civil contempt requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Szot v. Szot, 41 Conn. App. 238 (1996) (due process violation where court terminated proceedings and denied opportunity to present evidence)
- Spencer v. Spencer, 177 Conn. App. 542 (2017) (noncompliance alone insufficient for contempt; court may deny contempt where factual basis explains failure)