130 Conn. App. 835
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Adjacent parcels share a driveway; defendant and family repeatedly violated court orders governing use of the right-of-way.
- Plaintiffs filed 2005-2007 claims for negligent and intentional emotional distress seeking punitive damages and related fees.
- Trial court found civil contempt for ongoing violations of December 3, 2007 orders and imposed remedial/custodial sanctions.
- May 7, 2008 order stated contempt and suspended imprisonment if cured; later alleged numerous additional violations.
- July 13, 2009 order imposed $100 penalties per violation and other monetary costs without a hearing on the fee/expense amounts.
- Court later remanded for due process and evidentiary issues with fee awards and driveway costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $100 penalties were proper civil contempt sanctions | Quarantas argue penalties coercive to ensure future compliance | Cooley contends penalties were punitive and not remedial | Penalties were improper; court abused discretion |
| Whether due process was satisfied for fees and driveway costs | Plaintiffs supported by submitted affidavits and cost estimates | Defendant sought a hearing to contest amounts | Due process violated; lacked evidentiary hearing; remand warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connell v. O'Connell, 101 Conn.App. 516 (2007) (standard for contempt findings; abuse of discretion review)
- Edmond v. Foisey, 111 Conn. App. 760 (2008) (civil vs. criminal contempt; punitive limits)
- Board of Education v. Shelton Education Assn., 173 Conn. 81 (1977) (distinction between civil and criminal contempt; remedial vs. punitive)
- Mays v. Mays, 193 Conn. 261 (1984) (civil contempt must be coercive/remedial; not purely punitive)
- Gina M.G. v. William C., 77 Conn. App. 582 (2003) (attorney’s fees available after contempt; discretionary)