130 Conn. App. 301
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Montagnese and defendant Spicer jointly resided at 117 West Hill Rd., Stamford, under a stipulation that resolved a summary process dispute.
- January 17, 2008 notice to quit was served; summary process filed January 30, 2008; March 18, 2008 the parties entered into a stipulation adopted as judgment requiring a $75,000 payment to Spicer.
- Payment schedule: $15,000 by March 31, 2008; $15,000 by April 11, 2008; $45,000 by December 31, 2008; Spicer vacated the premises by May 31, 2008 upon payment.
- Montagnese paid the first two installments and Spicer vacated; Montagnese failed to pay the final $45,000 and contempt motions were filed.
- Trial court granted contempt orders on March 10, 2009, February 19, 2010, and April 8, 2010, with purge amounts and payment plans imposed; May 4, 2010 contempt order incarcerated Montagnese until purge amount paid or until May 18, 2010.
- Montagnese challenged the contempt finding as not wilful due to alleged financial inability; the court found wilful noncompliance based on evidence of the wife’s substantial income and prior financial assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt finding was proper for wilful noncompliance | Montagnese argues noncompliance was not wilful due to financial inability | Spicer contends Montagnese had the ability to pay and violated orders wilfully | Contempt sustained; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the record supports the court's finding of ability to pay | Montagnese asserts lack of ability to pay the $500 weekly amount | Spicer showed evidence of Montagnese's financial support from his wife and self-employment wealth | Record supports ability to pay; noncompliance was wilful |
Key Cases Cited
- Kravetz v. Kravetz, 126 Conn. App. 459 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard; contempt requires wilful noncompliance)
- Adamo v. Adamo, 123 Conn. App. 38 (2010) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings in contempt)
- Papa v. New Haven Federation of Teachers, 186 Conn. 725 (1982) (appeal not moot when contempt penalties enforcement continues post-appeal)
- Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441 (2010) (record deficiencies and need for memorandum of decision or signed transcript in review)