171 Conn. App. 851
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Winston and Jennifer Grant married in 1996; no children. Jennifer sued for dissolution on April 9, 2014 and served automatic orders under Practice Book § 25-5. Main marital assets were a jointly owned Bridgeport rental house and Winston’s Chase retirement account (~$76,064.97 at time of service).
- After the complaint, Winston withdrew nearly all funds from the retirement account (April 21 & 23, 2014) and used the money for taxes, rent, furniture, travel, living expenses and attorney fees; about $6,000 remained at trial.
- Jennifer moved for contempt and for order regarding the retirement account; at dissolution (Jan. 15, 2015) the trial court: found Winston in contempt, ordered him to transfer current value (~$6,700) plus pay 40% of the $76,064.97 account (~$30,425.98) within 30 days, awarded the Bridgeport property to Jennifer, and declared the Jamaica real estate Winston’s exclusive property but ordered him to pay Jennifer $20,000 for her contributions when the property is sold or in four years.
- On articulation, the trial court stated Winston spent the funds on customary household expenses and taxes but also asserted he violated the automatic orders; it later specified some categories and amounts (taxes ≈ $10,498–$14,000; furniture ≈ $9,644.86; rent ≈ $950/month; other living costs).
- Winston appealed, arguing (1) the contempt finding lacked specificity and was inconsistent with the court’s articulation that expenditures were customary household expenses, (2) the 30-day $30,425.98 payment order ignored his inability to pay, and (3) the Jamaica-property ownership finding and $20,000 award lacked evidentiary support. The Court of Appeals reversed the financial orders and contempt finding and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly found Winston in contempt for depleting his retirement account in violation of automatic orders | Court had clear and convincing evidence Winston wilfully depleted the account after service | Withdrawals were for customary and usual household expenses (taxes, rent, furniture, living expenses, attorney fees) allowed by Practice Book §25-5(b); court did not identify specific impermissible expenditures | Reversed: contempt finding was an abuse of discretion because the court’s articulation showed expenditures were customary household expenses and it failed to identify any specific prohibited expenditures |
| Whether the court could order Winston to pay $30,425.98 within 30 days from remaining assets | Award represents 40% of funds in account at time of service and is an equitable division | Court made no findings on Winston’s present ability to pay; he was largely unemployed with limited cash at judgment | Reversed: court abused discretion by ordering immediate payment without findings or evidence supporting Winston’s ability to pay |
| Whether the court could find Winston sole owner of Jamaica property and order $20,000 to Jennifer payable on sale or in four years | Jennifer claimed contributed upkeep and maintenance; award compensates her contributions | Ownership and value of Jamaican property were unsupported by documentary evidence or probative testimony; no findings as to value, encumbrances, or defendant’s ability to pay | Reversed: court’s ownership finding and $20,000 order lacked evidentiary support and required further proceedings |
| Remedy and scope of reversal | Forfeiture of award would unjustly deprive Jennifer of relief | Financial orders interrelate; erroneous findings undermine whole financial mosaic | Financial orders and contempt order reversed; case remanded for further proceedings on all financial orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Anderson, 160 Conn. App. 341 (Conn. App. 2015) (standard of review for factual findings in dissolution cases)
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2005) (trial court must consider §46b-81 factors and ability to pay in financial awards)
- Greenan v. Greenan, 150 Conn. App. 289 (Conn. App. 2014) (discussing when expenditures exceed customary household expenses and violate automatic orders)
- Czarzasty v. Czarzasty, 101 Conn. App. 583 (Conn. App. 2007) (finding violation of automatic orders where withdrawals lacked credible permissible purpose)
- Szynkowicz v. Szynkowicz, 140 Conn. App. 525 (Conn. App. 2013) (contempt is question of fact; review for abuse of discretion)
- Traystman v. Traystman, 141 Conn. App. 789 (Conn. App. 2013) (ability to pay and interrelatedness of financial orders)
- Gyerko v. Gyerko, 113 Conn. App. 298 (Conn. App. 2009) (assessing sufficiency of evidence for foreign property ownership)
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 161 Conn. App. 575 (Conn. App. 2015) (purpose and scope of automatic orders under Practice Book §25-5)
- Picton v. Picton, 111 Conn. App. 143 (Conn. App. 2008) (trial court discretion in equitable distribution)