181 Conn. App. 309
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties divorced in 2007 pursuant to a detailed separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution judgment; disputes continued with numerous postjudgment motions and prior appeals.
- Paragraph 6.15 required the parties to "divide in kind" specified passive investments/limited partnerships listed in the defendant’s financial affidavit; many interests could not practically be transferred.
- Paragraph 3.1 governed alimony: (a) set percentage tiers (40% of first $400,000, stepping down to 32.5% after Jan 1, 2014), and (f) handwritten minimum alimony "under 3.1(a) shall be $160,000 per year."
- Plaintiff filed postjudgment motions: (1) compel division of the § III(G) assets and hold defendant in contempt; (2) contempt for underpaid 2007 alimony; (3) claim defendant improperly reduced post‑2014 payments based on his reading of paragraph 3.1(a)/(f).
- Trial court (after remand hearings) ordered defendant to pay the plaintiff $9,602.62 for distributions and $80,335.50 for 2007 underpayment (with limited interest), but refused to find contempt on either issue, held paragraph 3.1 ambiguous, admitted extrinsic evidence, denied the plaintiff’s claim for additional arrearage post‑2014, and declined to award attorney’s fees. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant should be held in contempt for failing to divide passive investments under para. 6.15 | Hirschfeld: once court found underpayment of distributions, defendant’s nonpayment was wilful and contemptuous | Machinist: in‑kind division was impossible; parties adopted a modified distribution method that was not a court order; substantial compliance/no willfulness | Court: No contempt. In‑kind division was impossible and the parties’ private modified agreement was not a court order; ordered payment of $9,602.62 but declined contempt finding |
| Whether defendant should be held in contempt for underpaying 2007 alimony | Hirschfeld: court found defendant had no reasonable basis for the deduction that caused underpayment, so his conduct was wilful | Machinist: although the deduction was improper, his position was made in good faith and not frivolous; parties confused about orders | Court: No contempt. Court found underpayment ($80,335.50) but also found the deduction was a nonfrivolous, good faith argument and neither party fully understood orders—no wilfulness |
| Whether paragraph 3.1 (a) and (f) are ambiguous and whether parol evidence was admissible | Hirschfeld: para. 3.1(f) is plain and requires a perpetual $160,000 minimum; parol evidence should be excluded by merger/ integration | Machinist: reading (f) with (a) creates an inconsistency; provision is ambiguous; extrinsic evidence admissible to resolve ambiguity | Court: Ambiguity existed because (a) and (f) were internally inconsistent; trial court properly admitted parol evidence to resolve intent and found (f) applied only until the 2014 step‑down |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying plaintiff attorney’s fees on motions | Hirschfeld: fees warranted because defendant should have been held in contempt | Machinist: no contempt findings, no basis for fees | Court: No abuse. Fee requests rested on contempt claims rejected by court; no independent basis shown for fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (2015) (standards for contempt: clarity of underlying order and necessity of willfulness)
- McGuire v. McGuire, 102 Conn. App. 79 (2007) (contempt requires wilful conduct; noncompliance alone insufficient)
- Tatro v. Tatro, 24 Conn. App. 180 (1991) (inability to obey an order through no fault of contemnor is defense to contempt)
- Kronholm v. Kronholm, 16 Conn. App. 124 (1988) (parol evidence admissible to aid interpretation when contract language is ambiguous)
- Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn. App. 712 (1996) (parol evidence rule does not bar evidence to explain inconsistencies or ambiguities)
- Brett Stone Painting & Maintenance, LLC v. New England Bank, 143 Conn. App. 671 (2013) (parol evidence may explain contractual ambiguities)
- Meridian Partners, LLC v. Dragone Classic Motorcars, Inc., 171 Conn. App. 355 (2017) (standard for determining contractual ambiguity is question of law reviewed de novo)
- Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., 153 Conn. App. 50 (2014) (irreconcilable inconsistent provisions create ambiguity)
- EH Investment Co., LLC v. Chappo, LLC, 174 Conn. App. 344 (2017) (contract interpretation should avoid rendering provisions superfluous)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 352 (2011) (prior appellate decision remanding on property division issue)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 137 Conn. App. 690 (2012) (prior appellate decision remanding on alimony underpayment issue)