164 Conn. App. 751
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Parties divorced in 2007; separation agreement incorporated into dissolution judgment set an eight‑year unallocated alimony/child‑support formula (§§ 8.1–8.4) with a one‑year $3,000/month "minimum payments" grace period followed by a contractual right to a de novo judicial "second look."
- Defendant filed a motion to modify on May 12, 2008 seeking the de novo review provided by the agreement; a hearing was noticed but never held amid extended postdissolution discovery and numerous motions.
- Beginning July 2008 the defendant unilaterally reduced payments from $3,000 to $1,200/month without a court modification; the plaintiff did not file a contempt motion until May 3, 2012.
- The trial court (Judge Richards) denied the defendant’s 2008 motion to modify as stale and for unclean hands, and found the defendant in wilful contempt for reducing payments; it awarded the plaintiff an arrearage (~$210,064.80), immediate partial payment, turnover of the defendant’s retirement account, and attorney’s fees.
- On appeal the Appellate Court reversed only the denial of the motion to modify and the sanctions portion of the contempt judgment, and affirmed the contempt finding itself.
Issues
| Issue | Nuzzi (Plaintiff) Argument | Nuzzi (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 motion to modify was properly denied as stale/for unclean hands | Motion was stale and defendant engaged in self‑help; no good cause for delay | Agreement guaranteed a de novo review after the one‑year grace period; the motion was timely and discovery gave good cause for delay | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by denying motion to modify; contract required de novo review and discovery/other delays could excuse revival under facts |
| Whether defendant was in contempt for reducing payments unilaterally | Plaintiff argued order was clear and defendant wilfully disobeyed by reducing payments | Defendant claimed ambiguity in agreement and an inability to pay; he sought judicial review instead of self‑help | Affirmed: order was sufficiently clear; self‑help was improper and court did not abuse discretion in finding wilful contempt |
| Whether the sanctions/arrearage calculation was proper | Plaintiff sought full arrearage under § 8.1 formula for period defendant underpaid | Defendant argued court failed to perform the contractually required de novo review and ignored changed circumstances (e.g., child turned 18) before awarding arrearage | Reversed as to sanctions: trial court abused discretion by applying § 8.1 formula without conducting the required de novo review or accounting for child’s majority and other contractual considerations |
| Remedy on remand | Plaintiff sought enforcement of arrearage and fees | Defendant sought de novo hearing and recalculation of obligations | Remanded: defendant to be afforded de novo review under the agreement; contempt finding stands but sanctions/arrearage must be recalculated after appropriate hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimm v. Grimm, 276 Conn. 377 (Conn. 2005) (describing procedurally dysfunctional matrimonial litigation)
- Zahringer v. Zahringer, 124 Conn. App. 672 (Conn. App. 2010) (parties may draft agreements providing for retroactive modification and courts may hear motions filed long before resolution)
- Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665 (Conn. 2013) (trial court may consider long delays between filing and hearing when awarding retroactive relief)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (Conn. 2015) (legal standard: underlying order must be clear and unambiguous to support contempt)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (Conn. 2001) (where judgment is ambiguous party must seek clarification rather than resort to self‑help)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (Conn. 2012) (when an order is unallocated, trial court must determine portion attributable to child support when child attains majority)
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (Conn. 2009) (general principles for interpreting separation agreements incorporated into dissolution decrees)