Hirschfeld v. MacHinist
131 Conn. App. 364
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Parties Hirschfeld and Machinist entered a separation agreement incorporated into their 2007 divorce judgment.
- The agreement includes merger clauses stating there were no representations beyond those in the agreement and that it fully governed their understanding.
- On November 27, 2009, Machinist moved for contempt and sanctions for alleged improper postjudgment litigation in New York and Connecticut.
- In October 2010, the court declined contempt but found bad faith and ordered Hirschfeld to pay Machinist $71,475.10 in attorney’s fees.
- Hirschfeld appealed, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper sanctions; the appellate court affirmed the sanctions award on review.
- The court distinguished jurisdiction from authority, concluding it had subject matter jurisdiction under family relations statutes to consider sanctions for conduct violating the dissolution judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction to sanction for NY conduct | Hirschfeld argues no subject matter jurisdiction for sanctions based on conduct in a New York action | Machinist contends the court had jurisdiction over the postjudgment motion seeking sanctions | Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the sanctions motion |
| Proper imposition of sanctions for bad faith litigation | Hirschfeld argues lack of Maris v. McGrath findings and reliance on counsel | Machinist argues the court applied Maris and acted within discretion | Court did not abuse discretion; sanctions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton, 88 Conn. App. 523 (2005) (distinguishes jurisdiction vs. authority and standards for court power to sanction)
- Roos v. Roos, 84 Conn. App. 415 (2004) (court had jurisdiction to consider contempt for violation of original judgment)
- CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375 (1996) (inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad-faith litigation)
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (establishes standard for bad-faith exception and required findings)
- Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn.App. 316 (2008) (articulation required when trial court’s factual predicates are unclear)