Schimenti v. Schimenti
186 A.3d 739
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Marriage dissolved; original judgment awarded defendant sole rights to his country club membership and other financial orders.
- Parties settled an appeal and entered a modified judgment adding: “The defendant agrees to pay 50 percent of the plaintiff’s initiation fee to Innis Arden Country Club.”
- Innis Arden offered three membership levels with initiation fees of $70,000 (senior), $38,000 (associate), and $5,000 (house).
- Plaintiff moved for contempt alleging defendant failed to pay his share of her initiation fee and sought counsel fees; trial court found no contempt but ordered defendant to pay half of the $70,000 senior initiation fee and contributed to plaintiff’s counsel fees.
- Trial judge acknowledged she applied her own life experiences and prejudices about gender treatment in country clubs rather than conducting a fact-bound inquiry into the parties’ intent regarding the ambiguous term “initiation fee.”
- Defendant did not seek recusal at trial and raised judicial bias for the first time on appeal; appellate court reviewed under plain error and reversed the initiation fee and counsel-fee orders, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “initiation fee” in modified judgment was ambiguous and what level of membership it required | Schimenti (plaintiff) argued the term warranted full/senior membership and defendant must pay half of that fee | Defendant argued the agreement contemplated a lower-level (associate or house) membership and evidence of parties' intent should be considered | Court found the term ambiguous; trial court should have conducted fact-bound inquiry into parties’ intent, not impose judge’s preferred outcome based on personal views; reversal required |
| Whether trial judge’s reliance on personal experiences and statements constituted disqualifying bias | Plaintiff urged that judges may use life experience and common sense; outcome was proper | Defendant contended judge’s statements showed bias that undermined impartiality and affected outcome | Appellate court held judge’s remarks and reliance on personal prejudices were plain error—impartiality was compromised and reversal was required |
| Whether plain error review was appropriate for unpreserved claim of judicial bias | Plaintiff argued no plain error and adverse rulings alone do not prove bias | Defendant sought plain error review because bias claims strike at judicial integrity and were evident in the record | Appellate court applied plain error: record was adequate, error obvious, and failing to reverse would cause manifest injustice; review granted |
| Whether counsel fees awarded were proper absent a contempt finding and given plaintiff’s means | Plaintiff sought fees for prosecuting contempt motions | Defendant argued awarding fees without contempt and when plaintiff had means was an abuse of discretion | Court reversed fee award as infected by the same impartiality/bias problem and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428 (reviewing plain error standard and manifest injustice requirement)
- Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (appellate courts may raise plain error sua sponte with opportunity for parties to brief)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial remarks do not constitute bias unless they display deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (settlement agreements incorporated in judgments are construed as contracts; ambiguous terms permit extrinsic evidence)
- Gabriel v. Gabriel, 324 Conn. 324 (contract ambiguity exists if language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation)
- Eckert v. Eckert, 285 Conn. 687 (clear contractual language is a question of law reviewed plenarily)
- Cameron v. Cameron, 187 Conn. 163 (judicial bias claims implicate fair trial concerns and may be reviewed for plain error)
- White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 313 Conn. 610 (generally, appellate courts do not entertain issues raised first on appeal)