158 Conn.App. 538
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Beth and Richard Keller married in 1992 and have three minor children; dissolution action began in May 2011.
- July 2011 stipulation gave Richard exclusive possession of the marital home; Beth moved out then and later moved residences twice (Hendrie Ave, then Valley Rd).
- June 8, 2012 parenting plan (incorporated into a court order) required each parent to provide the other with residence address, email, and phone numbers and to update promptly; paragraph 8 required written itinerary (address, phone, travel, lodging) for out-of-state vacations.
- On October 24, 2013 Richard moved for contempt, alleging Beth failed to provide her new address and adequate vacation contact details; after a November 6, 2013 hearing the trial court found Beth in contempt on both grounds but imposed no sanctions.
- Beth appealed only the contempt finding for failing to provide her address and argued Practice Book §25-5(a)(2) did not apply to subsequent moves after the initial move from the family home. The Appellate Court affirmed the contempt finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is moot because one contempt ground remains unchallenged | Keller: reversal of the address contempt would still be meaningful (removal of a contempt finding from record). | Keller: appeal moot because contempt for vacation itinerary remains. | Not moot; reversal of one contempt finding would provide practical relief. |
| Whether Practice Book §25-5(a)(2) required written notice for Beth’s move to Valley Rd | Keller: §25-5(a)(2) applies only to the initial move from the family home, not to subsequent moves two years later. | Keller: §25-5 can reasonably be read to require written notice whenever a party who originally left the family residence relocates. | Court did not need to resolve §25-5 scope; it found contempt independently under the clear parenting-plan order. |
| Whether the June 8, 2012 parenting-plan order was sufficiently clear to support contempt | Keller: she orally informed Richard of her general location and he knew where children were, so she complied in substance. | Keller: the parenting-plan order plainly required each parent to provide full address, email, phone and prompt updates; Beth failed to provide the actual address. | Held: the parenting-plan order was clear and unambiguous; the trial court reasonably found Beth failed to provide required contact information (including the precise address). |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in finding contempt | Keller: no willfulness or sanction; oral notice and actual knowledge by Richard made contempt unwarranted. | Keller: court’s factual finding that Beth did not provide the required address and contact information was not clearly erroneous. | Held: no abuse of discretion; contempt finding affirmed (court did not decide willfulness). |
Key Cases Cited
- Brody v. Brody, 145 Conn. App. 654 (2013) (mootness and justiciability principles in family law appeals)
- Raftopol v. Ramey, 299 Conn. 681 (2011) (presumption favoring jurisdiction; interpret record to preserve jurisdiction)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 114 Conn. App. 143 (2009) (a contempt finding can affect future penalties even if no sanction imposed)
- Sgarellino v. Hightower, 13 Conn. App. 591 (1988) (effect of contempt findings)
- LaFaci-Zitzkat v. Zitzkat, 19 Conn. App. 805 (1989) (pendente lite orders cease to exist after final judgment)
- Altraide v. Altraide, 153 Conn. App. 327 (2014) (appeals from pendente lite orders may be moot after final dissolution judgment)
- Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345 (1972) (adjudication of contempt is final and reviewable on jurisdictional questions)
- Mekrut v. Suits, 147 Conn. App. 794 (2014) (two-step contempt review: clarity of order de novo; abuse of discretion for contempt determination)
- Brett Stone Painting & Maintenance, LLC v. New England Bank, 143 Conn. App. 671 (2013) (appellate courts presume trial courts applied correct law and facts)