194 Conn.App. 727
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Parties: M.B. (father, self-represented) and S.A. (mother) are unmarried parents of a child; trial court awarded S.A. sole legal and primary physical custody.
- Trial court ordered M.B. to pay $253/week child support and found arrearages for unpaid support, unreimbursed medical expenses, and work-related child care.
- M.B. appealed the support/visitation ruling (arguing his required Greenwich housing expense should affect support); he did not move to stay support obligations during the appeal.
- While that appeal was pending, S.A. filed multiple postjudgment contempt motions for M.B.’s nonpayment; the trial court held hearings, found M.B. in contempt, imposed sanctions (including a purge amount he paid), and later awarded S.A. $9,825 in attorney’s fees.
- After this court’s prior decision remanding on the guideline/deviation issue, the trial court vacated its findings as to certain arrearage amounts but left the contempt orders and fee award intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by finding M.B. in contempt for nonpayment while support order was on appeal | M.B.: appeal tolled or stayed payment obligation | S.A.: appeal does not automatically stay support; M.B. never sought a stay | Held: No error — appeal does not automatically stay support and M.B. did not move for a stay, so payments remained due |
| Whether court abused discretion by hearing contempt motions before a pending motion to modify visitation | M.B.: court prioritized contempt hearings unfairly over visitation modification | S.A.: court has docket control and may schedule matters as it deems appropriate | Held: No abuse — trial court has broad docket-management discretion and acted reasonably given numerous filings |
| Whether court failed to consider M.B.’s financial affidavits | M.B.: affidavits showed inability to pay, so contempt was not wilful | S.A.: court considered the affidavits and rejected them as not credible | Held: No error — court considered but discredited M.B.’s affidavits; credibility determinations are for the trial court |
| Whether awarding S.A. attorney’s fees was improper after vacatur of arrearages | M.B.: vacating arrearages effectively vacated underlying contempt and fees | S.A.: vacatur of arrearage amounts did not nullify contempt findings or sanctions | Held: No error — court vacated only arrearage amounts, not underlying contempt orders or fee sanctions |
| Whether court erred by accepting S.A.’s fee affidavits filed with incorrect docket numbers | M.B.: misfiled affidavits deprived court of authority or prejudiced him | S.A.: incorrect docket numbers are clerical/circumstantial defects | Held: No error — incorrect docket numbers are circumstantial defects that do not deprive the court of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolyniec v. Wolyniec, 188 Conn. App. 53 (2019) (filing an appeal does not automatically stay family support orders)
- Yuille v. Parnoff, 189 Conn. App. 124 (2019) (trial court’s broad discretion in docket management)
- Lane v. Lane, 84 Conn. App. 651 (2004) (court controls its schedule; inherent authority over docket)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn. App. 335 (2000) (standard of review in domestic relations; great weight to trial court’s factual findings)
- Bay Hill Constr., Inc. v. Waterbury, 75 Conn. App. 832 (2003) (trial judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Plasil v. Tableman, 223 Conn. 68 (1992) (incorrect docket number is a circumstantial defect; does not strip court of remedies)
- State v. Gillespie, 92 Conn. App. 143 (2005) (reiterating that clerical/docketing errors do not deprive court of jurisdiction)