140 Conn. App. 507
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Judgment of dissolution awarded custody of six children to plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay weekly child support, alimony, unallocated support, and arrearage deductions, with half of unreimbursed dental expenses split.
- Plaintiff filed contempt motion on October 17, 2011 alleging defendant failed to pay alimony, child support, additional support, and dental expenses as ordered.
- Defendant objected on December 6, 2011 asserting laches as an equitable defense.
- Hearing held December 14, 2011; parties acknowledged child support and alimony orders had terminated by 2007-2009, with TR Paul, Inc. sending payments to plaintiff; arrearages calculated by plaintiff totaled $100,625.52 plus dental arrears $6,814.
- Court found defendant in contempt and rejected laches, noting plaintiff’s delay was excusable and no prejudice to defendant, and ordered lump-sum and weekly payments.
- Defendant appealed challenging the contempt finding and the laches ruling; the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt finding was proper | Kasowitz disobeyed court orders knowingly | No wilful disobedience; payments were not clearly communicated | Contempt affirmed; finding supported by evidence of wilful noncompliance |
| Whether laches barred contempt | Delay excusable and not prejudicial | Delay prejudicial and inexcusable | Laches rejected; delay excusable; no prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Gray, 131 Conn. App. 404 (2011) (contumacious conduct must be wilful to support contempt; credibility assessments preserved)
- Montagnese v. Spicer, 130 Conn. App. 301 (2011) (standard for reviewing contempt findings; credibility and discretion of trial court)
- Giordano v. Giordano, 127 Conn. App. 498 (2011) (responsibility for compliance may rest with party; reliance on third-party payments)
- Cifaldi v. Cifaldi, 118 Conn. App. 325 (2009) (elements of laches; excusable delay and lack of prejudice required)
- Jarvis v. Lieder, 117 Conn. App. 129 (2009) (laches analysis; prejudice central to defense)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 72 Conn. App. 408 (2002) (precedents on laches and equitable defenses)