137 Conn. App. 690
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Hirschfeld appeals after contempt judgment requiring Machinist to pay $36,959 in alimony for 2007 and $17,731.97 in fees.
- Separation agreement incorporated into the 2007 divorce sets alimony under a tiered formula (40%, 30%, 20%, 0%) based on earned income up to $1,500,001.
- Paragraph 3.5 requires the defendant to provide W‑2/1099 forms or other documents corroborating earned income, with Plaintiff entitled to auditor review.
- Paragraph 3.3 defines gross earned income and excludes passive investments from that category.
- Plaintiff claimed 2007 alimony was underpaid and sought broader disclosure; trial court limited disclosures to tax forms and granted contempt.
- Court reversed, finding 3.5 unambiguously contemplates broader documentary disclosure and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3.5 permits broader disclosure beyond tax forms | Hirschfeld: 3.5 requires corroboration via documents beyond tax filings | Machinist: disclosures limited to tax forms suffice | 3.5 unambiguously requires broader document disclosure and CPA review is allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (contract interpretation standards; intent of parties; unambiguous terms)
- Allen v. Allen, 134 Conn. App. 486 (2012) (contract interpretation in appellate review)
- Hopson v. Hopson, 135 Conn. App. 690 (2012) (use of ordinary meaning in contract interpretation)
- Oneglia v. Oneglia, 14 Conn. App. 267 (1988) (posits discovery scope in contempt context)