Mettler v. Mettler, 165 Conn. App. 829

Elizabeth and Kirsten Mettler divorced; they have one child. A postdissolution agreement approved by the court on July 26, 2011 required Elizabeth to pay weekly child support and provided that "effective August 1, 2011, the parties shall share equally the child’s agreed upon activity expenses concerning swimming, guitar, tennis and summer camps."
Kirsten, awarded sole legal and physical custody in 2010, moved for contempt (June 2014), alleging Elizabeth failed to pay her half of extracurricular activity expenses incurred after August 1, 2011.
At the contempt hearing, the court excluded testimony from Elizabeth’s former attorney as extrinsic evidence, concluding the agreement’s language was clear and unambiguous and could be interpreted from the plain text alone.
The trial court found Elizabeth wilfully refused to pay, calculated an arrearage of $17,441.45, found she had the ability to pay, and ordered three payments to purge contempt.
On appeal, Elizabeth argued the contested clause was ambiguous (so extrinsic evidence should be admissible), the court erred in excluding her former attorney’s testimony, and the arrearage calculation was incorrect.
The appellate court held the phrase "agreed upon activity expenses concerning swimming, guitar, tennis and summer camps" is reasonably susceptible to two interpretations and therefore ambiguous; it reversed the contempt judgment and remanded for further proceedings including consideration of extrinsic evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mettler)	Defendant's Argument (K. Mettler)	Held
Whether the court order was sufficiently clear to support contempt	The phrase "agreed upon activity expenses" requires prior agreement about the expenses themselves; ambiguity exists so contempt improper	Words mean activities (swimming, guitar, tennis, camps) were previously agreed and each party must split expenses for those activities	Ambiguous: reversed — the phrase is reasonably susceptible to both meanings
Whether extrinsic evidence should be admitted to determine parties' intent	Former attorney’s testimony and other extrinsic evidence should be admissible to clarify intent	Agreement is clear on its face; extrinsic evidence unnecessary and inadmissible	Because the clause is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence must be allowed on remand
Whether contempt finding was willful and supported by record	Contempt finding was premature because order ambiguous and intent unresolved	Arrearage established and plaintiff had notice and ability to pay, so contempt appropriate	Reversed contempt; willfulness must be reassessed after resolving ambiguity with extrinsic evidence
Whether arrearage amount awarded was correct	Plaintiff contests calculation of amounts owed	Defendant supported amount as reasonable and provided notice of expenses	Court did not reach amount issue on appeal because ambiguity required remand; parties may litigate amounts on remand

Mekrut v. Suits, 147 Conn. App. 794 (clarifies standard of review for contempt and fact findings)
Celini v. Celini, 115 Conn. App. 371 (contract interpretation principles in family agreements)
Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (defines ambiguity and interpretation standards)
Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC, 311 Conn. 93 (extrinsic evidence admissible when contract ambiguous)
Lisko v. Lisko, 158 Conn. App. 734 (judgments based on stipulations treated as contracts)
Bucy v. Bucy, 19 Conn. App. 5 (appealability of contempt rulings and unresolved claims)
Khan v. Hilyer, 306 Conn. 205 (civil contempt requiring coercive action is appealable)
State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (two-prong test for appealability of trial court rulings)