Pressley v. Johnson
AC38821
| Conn. App. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Parties divorced April 17, 2013; joint legal custody of four minor children who live primarily with Pressley. Dissolution judgment required parties to equally split reasonable and necessary work‑related child care expenses so Pressley could maintain employment.
- Pressley enrolled children in a program beginning September 2015. After scholarships, total out‑of‑pocket cost was $629.63 per month for all four children; Pressley paid September but Johnson refused to contribute his half.
- Pressley filed a contempt motion (Aug. 27, 2015) seeking the defendant be held in contempt for failing to pay one‑half of child care expenses incurred when she began working.
- At hearings in Oct. 2015 the trial court found the program objectively reasonable but concluded the cost was not reasonable given the parties’ finances; it declined to find contempt, temporarily ordered $75/week going forward, then vacated that order as an improper modification of the dissolution judgment.
- On reargument the court held the claimed child care costs were not reasonable under the parties’ finances and therefore Johnson was not obligated to pay one‑half of the amounts Pressley had already incurred; Pressley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied contempt and declined to calculate an arrearage under the dissolution judgment requiring equal split of reasonable work‑related child care | Pressley: Court should have enforced the plain dissolution provision and calculated Johnson’s arrearage for his half of reasonable/necessary child care she incurred | Johnson: Financial inability justified nonpayment; costs were unreasonable given parties’ finances | Reversed: Trial court abused discretion by failing to find and quantify an arrearage under the existing dissolution judgment; remanded to determine amount owed |
| Whether the trial court improperly modified the dissolution judgment by ordering $75/week without a motion to modify | Pressley: The $75/week order was an unauthorized modification and must be vacated | Court/Johnson: Order represented equitable adjustment given finances (implicit) | Trial court correctly vacated the $75/week order as an improper retroactive modification |
| Standard for reviewing denial of motion to reargue and contempt determinations | Pressley: Court overlooked that it must calculate arrearage and may fashion equitable relief to enforce judgment | Johnson: (not briefed to appellate court) | Appellate standard is abuse of discretion for reargument; contempt threshold (clarity of order) reviewed de novo, and contempt remedies are equitable and broad |
| Whether the trial court could refuse to award reimbursement for past reasonable child care on equitable grounds | Pressley: Court should have required payment of past reasonable child care expenses per the judgment | Johnson: Financial inability excused past nonpayment | Court abused discretion in not finding an arrearage; it cannot nullify the obligation without a modification proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523 (1998) (orders must be obeyed until modified or successfully challenged)
- Ciottone v. Ciottone, 154 Conn. App. 780 (2015) (two‑step contempt review: clarity of order de novo, abuse of discretion for wilfulness and remedy)
- Fuller v. Fuller, 119 Conn. App. 105 (2010) (trial court has broad equitable power in contempt proceedings to make a party whole)
- Lynch v. Lynch, 153 Conn. App. 208 (2014) (standard and purpose of reargument motion)