198 Conn.App. 83
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2012; the judgment required the plaintiff (Alvin Rosario) to pay outstanding utility/sewer bills related to the marital home.
- The defendant (Thyjuan Rosario) filed multiple motions for contempt after the plaintiff failed to pay those obligations; initial contempt proceedings began in 2013 and continued with new motions in 2016 and 2017 (motions #154.79 and #156 among others).
- A hearing was set for January 3, 2017; after the defendant failed to appear that day the court initially denied the contempt motions but the defendant had filed motions for continuance and the court later, on January 19, 2017, granted a continuance in part and ordered the parties to obtain a new family caseflow hearing date.
- The evidentiary hearing ultimately continued on April 13, 2017; on June 28, 2017 the court found the plaintiff in contempt, concluded he willfully failed to pay sewer obligations, and ordered payment.
- On appeal, the plaintiff argued (1) the contempt motions had been denied on January 3 and thus were not pending when the court found him in contempt, and (2) he was not served with motion #156.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: it held the January 19, 2017 order effectively vacated the January 3 denials so the contempt motions remained pending, and the service claim was inadequately briefed/waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt motions were pending when the court found plaintiff in contempt | January 3, 2017 denials of the motions meant no pending motions; court lacked basis to find contempt | The defendant obtained continuance(s); the January 19, 2017 order reopening/continuing the matter effectively vacated the January 3 denials so motions remained pending | The January 19 order effectively vacated the January 3 denials; motions #154.79 and #156 were properly pending and the contempt finding stands |
| Whether plaintiff was properly served with motion #156 (personal jurisdiction/service) | Plaintiff contends he did not receive service of motion #156 and thus court lacked personal jurisdiction over him on that motion | Defendant contends plaintiff participated in hearings on the related motions (after motion #156 was filed) and thereby waived any service objection; appearance and active contestation defeated the service challenge | Plaintiff’s service claim was inadequately briefed and waived; moreover, by appearing and contesting the motions the plaintiff forfeited the personal-jurisdiction objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Rock v. University of Connecticut, 144 A.3d 420 (Conn. 2016) (issues are inadequately briefed when presented as conclusory assertions without authority)
- Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 653 A.2d 782 (Conn. 1995) (issues merely mentioned and not briefed are deemed waived)
- Kenosia Commons, Inc. v. DaCosta, 129 A.3d 730 (Conn. App. 2015) (considering appeal on the basis of appellant’s brief when appellee did not file one)
- State v. Germain, 65 A.3d 536 (Conn. App. 2013) (appellant’s duty to provide transcripts for meaningful appellate review)
- Matthews v. SBA, Inc., 89 A.3d 938 (Conn. App. 2014) (proper service of process is prerequisite to personal jurisdiction)
- Barr v. Barr, 225 A.3d 972 (Conn. App. 2020) (challenge to personal jurisdiction ordinarily waived if not timely raised, but lack of service can preserve the objection)
- In re Baby Girl B., 618 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1992) (appearance and active participation can waive objections to personal jurisdiction)
- Beardsley v. Beardsley, 137 A.2d 752 (Conn. 1958) (same principle regarding waiver by appearance)