126 Conn. App. 274
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Department of Environmental Protection issued orders in 2002 requiring corrective actions for the 46 South Street, Danbury site.
- In 2005 the department filed a complaint alleging multiple violations and seeking injunctive relief.
- On November 15, 2006 the parties entered a stipulated judgment with section A (Injunctive Relief) and section B (Civil Penalty) totaling $150,000, payable in installments and with a trigger for full payment if injunctive obligations or payment deadlines were breached.
- Defendants were required to respond to the department’s Stevens letter highlighting deficiencies in the site investigation report; the department later demanded full $150,000 payment, plus interest and costs.
- After delays and disputed responses, the department moved for contempt in May 2008 for failures to submit revised reports, perform and monitor remedial measures, and pay the civil penalty.
- The trial court denied contempt in March 2009, holding that the stipulated judgment created a plausible interpretation that monetary liability could be an alternative to remedial action, and thus no wilful contempt was shown; on appeal the court affirmed, finding ambiguity in the stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stipulated judgment was sufficiently clear to support contempt | McCarthy: judgment unambiguous; penalties combine with injunctive relief | Custom Design: judgment ambiguous; monetary remedy could bar additional enforcement | Ambiguity; not sufficiently clear to support contempt |
| Whether the civil penalty provision precludes contempt for noncompliance with injunctive provisions | Penalty is a tool within the order to enforce injunctive relief | Penalty preempts other remedies; contempt not available | Ambiguous interplay; no contempt based on ambiguity |
| Whether ownership status of the property forecloses contempt for failing to perform remedial actions | Defendants had access and obligation to ensure compliance regardless of ownership | No ownership or access; cannot perform remedial actions | Ownership/access issues contribute to ambiguity; contempt not supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Rocque v. Northeast Utils. Service Co., 254 Conn. 78 (2000) (stipulated judgment defined as a contract of the parties)
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (2007) (contempt standards; clarifies ambiguity analysis for contempt)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (2001) (wilfulness not precluded by ambiguity in some contexts)
- Cantonbury Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Local Land Development, LLC, 273 Conn. 724 (2005) (contract interpretation governs ambiguity in stipulations)