Perry v. Perry
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 431
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Parties filed for dissolution in 2006; custody and parenting time bifurcated from financial issues.
- August 2008 trial produced a custody stipulation with a scrivener’s error: father was to have weekend visitation every weekend, not every other weekend; both sides acknowledged the error.
- November 26, 2008 dissolution judgment incorporated the uncorrected stipulation and divided assets, awarded alimony and child support, and ordered fees from a brokerage account; also required defendant to indemnify plaintiff for tax claims arising from joint returns.
- July 2, 2009 plaintiff moved for postjudgment clarification to address weekend visitation; court subsequently ordered plaintiff to have parenting time for a specific weekend and set a hearing.
- January 25, 2010 Judge Gordon issued a sua sponte clarification changing the schedule to father having every other Friday 4:00 p.m. to Sunday 8:00 p.m., addressing ambiguity in the stipulation.
- March 15, 2010 plaintiff moved again for clarification related to a separate tax indemnification liability; June 30, 2010 Judge Gordon clarified that each party indemnifies the other for tax liabilities, effectively modifying the judgment on property/financial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the January 25, 2010 order was a proper clarification, not a modification. | Perry contends it clarified an ambiguity to reflect the parties’ agreement. | Perry argues it was a substantive modification needing a hearing. | Clarification, not a modification; proper. |
| Whether the June 30, 2010 order imposing mutual indemnification was a modification and timely. | Holcombe/Bauer standards support clarification; no ambiguity to modify. | Order modified the underlying judgment and was outside the four‑month window. | Modification; set aside; improper and untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (2009) (clarification to address postjudgment retirement benefits ambiguity)
- In re Haley B., 262 Conn. 406 (2003) (clarifications may be appropriate to protect judgment integrity; not for substantive change)
- Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn.App. 363 (1990) (clarification used to allocate unlisted liabilities; not to alter judgment terms)
- Bauer v. Bauer, 130 Conn.App. 185 (2011) (motion for clarification under 4-month limit; substance governs classification as clarification vs modification)