Scalora v. Scalora, 189 Conn. App. 703

Background

Parties divorced in 2008; the dissolution judgment incorporated a written separation agreement requiring the defendant (Jeffrey Scalora) to pay periodic alimony, certain education/activity expenses for the children, and to maintain a $250,000 life insurance policy naming the plaintiff (Betsy Scalora) and the children as beneficiaries. The agreement contained a nonwaiver clause preserving each party’s right to enforce the agreement later.
In 2015 Betsy filed a contempt motion claiming arrears (alimony, medical insurance, life insurance premiums she paid after a lapse, and children’s education/activity/food/clothing expenses for 2010–2014).
Jeffrey raised special defenses of laches, equitable estoppel, and waiver; he also filed contempt and credit motions (claiming improper tax dependency claims by Betsy and requesting credit for half the older daughter’s wedding costs).
The trial court (Adelman, J.) granted Betsy’s motion in part (alimony arrears; reimbursement for certain insurance, education, activity, food/clothing costs) and found Jeffrey in contempt for failing to maintain life insurance; it denied his wedding-credit request and found Betsy in contempt for improperly claiming dependency exemptions.
On appeal this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it held the nonwaiver clause barred Jeffrey’s laches/estoppel/waiver defenses; found the trial court improperly took judicial notice of a clothing allowance (requiring recalculation); reversed the contempt finding as to life insurance due to insufficient clear-and-convincing proof; and affirmed other rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s laches/equitable estoppel/waiver defenses barred enforcement of the separation agreement	Betsy relied on the agreement’s nonwaiver clause to permit delayed enforcement	Jeffrey argued laches/estoppel/waiver because she waited years to sue for 2010–2014 arrears	Court: nonwaiver clause unambiguous; it precluded those defenses absent unconscionability/unequal bargaining/sharp dealing, which were not shown — defenses rejected
Whether the trial court properly took judicial notice of “reasonable” food and clothing costs when awarding reimbursements	Betsy presented actual receipts but not evidence of a reasonableness standard; court should be able to fashion equitable relief	Jeffrey argued court improperly noticed facts (e.g., $200/mo clothing) without evidence or notice and that such matters are disputable	Court: taking judicial notice of a $200/mo clothing allowance was improper and harmful because reasonableness of periodic clothing costs is not a proper subject for judicial notice; clothing arrearage reversed and remanded for recalculation; meal-plan notice error harmless here
Whether defendant should receive credit for half the older daughter’s wedding expenses	Betsy denied agreeing to pay half; she had limited income and never agreed to waive support rights	Jeffrey said she promised to be half-responsible and to credit that against arrears	Court: trial court’s credibility finding for Betsy not clearly erroneous; denied credit request
Whether contempt finding for failure to maintain life insurance was supported	Betsy testified defendant’s policy lapsed in 2010 and she purchased replacement policy (seeking reimbursement and contempt finding)	Jeffrey gave inconsistent testimony, sometimes suggesting he maintained coverage; trial court had unanswered questions about whether plaintiff’s policy replaced or supplemented his	Court: contempt requires clear and convincing evidence and willfulness; unanswered factual questions meant Betsy did not meet burden — contempt finding and remedial order for life insurance vacated

Key Cases Cited

Kasowitz v. Kasowitz, 140 Conn. App. 507 (Conn. App. 2013) (describing elements of laches)
Christensen v. Cutaia, 211 Conn. 613 (Conn. 1989) (nonwaiver clauses bar waiver/estoppel defenses absent sharp dealing or unequal bargaining)
Webster Bank v. Oakley, 265 Conn. 539 (Conn. 2003) (treatment of nonwaiver clauses in contract disputes)
Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc., 231 Conn. 707 (Conn. 1995) (judicial notice doctrine and its effect on proof)
Ferraro v. Ferraro, 168 Conn. App. 723 (Conn. App. 2016) (judicial notice: parties must be given opportunity to be heard for matters susceptible to explanation or contradiction)
Moore v. Moore, 173 Conn. 120 (Conn. 1977) (reasonableness of child clothing expenses is not proper for judicial notice)
Brochard v. Brochard, 185 Conn. App. 204 (Conn. App. 2018) (contempt standards: willfulness and clear-and-convincing proof required)