139 Conn. App. 661
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Marriage dissolved 2010; separation agreement incorporated into dissolution judgment; handwritten sentence added to §14.1; contempt motion filed Jan 2011 for failure to withdraw Lebanon action; court held hearings Feb–Mar 2011; court ordered actions beyond the agreement; Nassra appeals postdissolution orders; appellate review is de novo on contract interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court modified the separation agreement terms. | Nassra contends the court-imposed duties exceed the agreement. | Nassra contends the court acted within the agreement’s scope or properly interpreted it. | Modification of the agreement beyond its clear terms is improper; reversed. |
| Whether the handwritten sentence in §14.1 is clear and unambiguous. | The language is ambiguous and should include broader consolidation of withdrawal. | The sentence clearly requires proof of withdrawal to the plaintiff. | Sentence clear and unambiguous; contract interpreted as requiring proof of withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (Conn. 2009) (contract interpretation in dissolution decree; plain meaning governs)
- Danehy v. Danehy, 118 Conn. App. 29 (Conn. App. 2009) (appellate review of trial court discretion in domestic relations matters)
- Williams v. Williams, 276 Conn. 491 (Conn. 2006) (contract interpretation and intention of parties; plain meaning rule)
- Eckert v. Eckert, 285 Conn. 687 (Conn. 2008) (interpretation of contracts; clear and unambiguous terms control)
- Greenburg v. Greenburg, 26 Conn. App. 691 (Conn. App. 1992) (courts do not rewrite contracts for parties)