Parisi v. Parisi
2013 WL 9884
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Judgment dissolving the marriage on November 19, 2010 incorporated the parties' separation agreement, including an alimony buyout of $300,000 to be paid non-taxable.
- December 14, 2010, the defendant filed a postjudgment motion for contempt alleging, among other things, that the buyout was paid via an IRA rollover or other improper means.
- January 13, 2011, a contempt hearing was held; the defendant testified that the proposed IRA transfer was economically less favorable than a cash buyout.
- August 8, 2011, the trial court issued a memorandum finding no cash $300,000 available to the plaintiff and no evidence of wilful misconduct, and denied articulation.
- On appeal, the defendant argues misinterpretation of the separation agreement, seeks contempt or compliance orders, and seeks modification/clarification of the property provisions; the court affirms.
- The court held the plaintiff did not wilfully fail to comply, declined to issue a further compliance order, and declined to modify the property provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was wilful noncompliance with the alimony buyout | Parisi offered to satisfy the buyout with assets; no evidence of wilful noncompliance | Parisi deliberately used an IRA rollover to avoid full buyout payment | No wilful noncompliance found |
| Whether the separation agreement allowed satisfaction of the buyout by assets | Agreement is clear that buyout can be satisfied by available assets | Agreement requires cash or asset liquidation resulting in $300,000 post-transfer | Court upheld interpretation that satisfaction via assets was permissible; no contempt |
| Whether the court should have issued an order of compliance irrespective of wilfulness | Court could determine compliance without a contempt finding | Court should issue an order of compliance to enforce buyout and asset transfers | No compelling evidence requiring an order of compliance |
| Whether the court had authority to modify or clarify the property division | Modification appropriate where necessary to enforce property provisions | Court should modify or clarify the property provisions to protect her interests | Court properly declined modification/clarification of property division |
Key Cases Cited
- Hibbard v. Hibbard, 139 Conn. App. 10 (2012) (Wilfulness requires consideration of surrounding circumstances)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (2001) (Good faith disputes may preclude wilfulness but not necessarily)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn. App. 828 (2001) (Burden of proof in contempt proceedings)
- United Illuminating Co. v. Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC, 259 Conn. 665 (2002) (Ambiguity in contract language not automatically compel interpretation)
- Kronholm v. Kronholm, 23 Conn. App. 577 (1990) (Trial court discretion in ordering compliance)
- Buehler v. Buehler, 138 Conn. App. 63 (2012) (Property assignments under 46b-81 not modifiable by dissolution judgment)
- Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441 (2010) (Court lacks jurisdiction to modify property division via dissolution decree)
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (2009) (Motions for clarification are not allowed to modify substantive terms)