Pace v. Pace
134 Conn. App. 212
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Married in 1989; two children (b. 1991, 1994).
- Dissolution in 2009 incorporating separation agreement: alimony $300/week; child support $450/week until oldest emancipates, then $350/week.
- December 2009 modification motion by plaintiff; defendant filed contempt.
- February 2, 2010 order: denial of modification; contempt sustained; $13,000 arrearage; $6265 in fees; court found plaintiff had funds and wilfully disobeyed.
- May 18, 2010 order: plaintiff's second modification denied; contempt affirmed; arrearage totaling $10,640 for 15 weeks; ongoing payment plan and a bar on further modification until total obligations ≤ $9000.
- March 2010 hearing: court used February 2, 2010 as reference point for substantial change in circumstances; arrearage and remedies addressed under Practice Book § 25-26.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was properly found in contempt. | Plaintiff contends lack of funds and no future income negate wilful contempt. | Court properly found wilful noncompliance based on available funds and credibility of income evidence. | No abuse; contempt sustained. |
| Whether the February 2, 2010 modification denial was proper. | Plaintiff argued there was a substantial change in circumstances. | Court reasonably found no substantial change based on credibility and lack of proven income. | No abuse; denial upheld. |
| Whether attorney's fees in contempt were properly awarded. | Challenge to fee award as improper or excessive. | Fees permitted; discretion to determine reasonableness and punitive nature. | No abuse; fees affirmed. |
| Authority to order arrearage payment and sua sponte modification. | Disagreement with arrearage payment and sua sponte modification. | Court had authority to address arrearage under Practice Book § 25-26 and adjust obligations. | Affirmed; authority to address arrearage and modification upheld. |
| Use of February 2, 2010 date for March 2010 modification inquiry. | Argues error in relying on February 2 date. | Counsel agreed; it was proper to use that date as the reference. | Not reversible error; no abuse; possible induced error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (Conn. 2007) (contested contempt standards and credibility defer to trial court)
- Rosier v. Rosier, 103 Conn.App. 338 (Conn. App. 2007) (modification standard; substantial change requires deference to trial court)
- Hodgate v. Ferraro, 123 Conn.App. 443 (Conn. App. 2010) (induced error and proper reference framework for modification timing)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 83 Conn.App. 106 (Conn. App. 2004) (right to counsel considerations in contempt proceedings)
- Gil v. Gil., 110 Conn.App. 798 (Conn. App. 2008) (attorney's fees in contempt are discretionary and punitive)
- LaBossiere v. Jones, 117 Conn.App. 211 (Conn. App. 2009) (credibility determinations within appellate review of contempt)