Mekrut v. Suits, 147 Conn. App. 794

Parties divorced after a separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution judgment; defendant ordered to pay weekly alimony ($550 until 8/13/2012, then $450 until 8/13/2019) and share in QDRO preparation and daughter’s college costs.
Defendant was terminated and received $106,528.32 net severance on 9/6/2011; he later spent over $30,000 of that severance on personal debts and stopped alimony payments on 2/24/2012.
Plaintiff filed a postjudgment contempt motion for unpaid alimony and QDRO contribution; defendant filed a modification motion seeking reduced alimony due to changed finances.
On 6/25/2012 the court (Morgan, J.) found defendant wilfully in contempt for unpaid alimony ($8,415 arrears), ordered payment and attorneys’ fees, and denied modification based on defendant’s culpable spending of severance.
While appeal of that ruling was pending, plaintiff filed a second contempt motion (7/17/2012); the court (Abrams, J.) granted it without holding an evidentiary hearing and ordered payment or incarceration; defendant was later jailed when he failed to pay.
The appeal challenged (1) the first contempt finding and denial of modification, (2) denial of an evidentiary hearing on the second contempt, and (3) incarceration without an express finding of ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. First contempt for unpaid alimony — was failure wilful?	Mekrut: defendant had funds (severance) and wilfully chose other debts over alimony.	Suits: spending severance and later unemployment made nonpayment non-wilful/unable.	Court affirmed: order was clear; evidence supported wilfulness because defendant could have budgeted severance/unemployment to pay alimony.
2. Denial of modification due to changed financial circumstances	Mekrut: defendant’s change was self-caused, so no modification.	Suits: termination and reduced income warranted reduction.	Court affirmed: defendant’s premature spending of severance was culpable conduct; threshold for modification not met.
3. Second contempt — was refusal to hold evidentiary hearing a due process violation?	Mekrut: court could decide on the papers relying on prior record.	Suits: requested hearing to present evidence of inability to pay; denial violated due process.	Reversed: court abused discretion by denying a trial-like evidentiary hearing on disputed facts; remanded for hearing.
4. Incarceration without finding ability to pay	Mekrut: incarceration was proper after contempt finding and failure to purge.	Suits: court failed to make necessary finding that he had ability to comply before jailing.	Not reached on merits because second contempt reversed; prior incarceration cannot be undone but no relief awarded.

In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (analysis framework for contempt: order clarity and abuse-of-discretion review)
Ahmadi v. Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384 (inability to obey without fault is defense to contempt; burden of proof on contemnor)
Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665 (modification threshold requires substantial change not caused by party’s culpable conduct)
Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50 (trial-like hearing required if factual issues in contempt are disputed)
Bryant v. Bryant, 228 Conn. 630 (due process requires notice, counsel, opportunity to testify and call witnesses in contempt proceedings)
Turgeon v. Turgeon, 190 Conn. 269 (a party’s choice to pay other debts does not excuse disobeying alimony orders)