Margarita O. v. Fernando I.
AC45708
Conn. App. Ct.Mar 11, 2025Background
- The case arises from post-dissolution disputes after the marriage of Margarita O. (plaintiff) and Fernando I. (defendant) was dissolved in Connecticut in 2010.
- The main disputes concerned the sale of the marital residence, calculation and distribution of the sale proceeds, and postsecondary educational support for their children.
- The trial court found the plaintiff in contempt for listing the marital residence above the court-ordered price, and ordered certain allocations of the sale proceeds, including a $25,000 deduction for educational support from the defendant's share.
- Defendant appealed some postjudgment orders, arguing errors in the sale proceeds calculation, including deductions not supported by their agreements, and opposed being ordered to pay educational support.
- Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing the contempt finding was improper because the court order on the listing price was ambiguous.
- The Appellate Court affirmed most trial court rulings, except it reversed the $25,000 reduction from defendant’s share for educational support due to clear stipulation language restricting court jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was contempt finding against plaintiff proper? | Order was ambiguous; listing higher price was justified | Order was specific; plaintiff disobeyed by listing too high | Order was unambiguous; contempt affirmed |
| Calculation of sale proceeds (closing costs/mortgage credited) | N/A | Plaintiff should bear all closing/mortgage costs per stipulation | Trial court followed dissolution judgment |
| Sanctions/adjustments to proceeds for alleged misconduct | N/A | Sought sanctions & reduction for procedural misconduct | No financial loss; sanctions denied |
| Attorney’s fees for self-represented attorney | N/A | Entitled to attorney’s fees as pro se attorney | Denied—no fees for self-represented attorney |
| $25,000 educational support deduction from defendant’s share | Court could order support despite disparate incomes | Stipulation barred support order absent comparable incomes | Reversed; court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Walton, 227 Conn. App. 251 (appellate standard for civil contempt requires clear, unambiguous order and willful noncompliance)
- Edmund v. Foisey, 111 Conn. App. 760 (sanctions for civil contempt must compensate for actual loss)
- Jones v. Ippoliti, 52 Conn. App. 199 (self-represented attorney litigants cannot recover attorney’s fees)
- Wethington v. Wethington, 223 Conn. App. 715 (contractual stipulations in family cases interpreted under contract principles)
- Buchenholz v. Buchenholz, 221 Conn. App. 132 (judgments to be construed as written instruments for intent)