215 Conn.App. 24
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Parties divorced (dissolved marriage incorporated a written separation agreement) that provided joint custody and an unallocated alimony/child support payment with specific start date (Jan. 1, 2015) and provisions allocating children’s boarding, medical, and extracurricular expenses by “years one through four” and “year five.”
- After the defendant remarried (May 4, 2018) alimony terminated under the agreement; the parties did not formally unbundle the unallocated award or seek a court child-support determination.
- Defendant moved for contempt, alleging Peter wilfully refused to reimburse a range of children’s expenses she paid (notably $5,775 dental bill, $51,500 private college coach, $9,000 car purchase, and a 22-day Jackson, WY enrichment program, plus many smaller items).
- Trial court found the agreement ambiguous (particularly the commencement date and meaning of “year five”), found many of the defendant’s unilateral expenditures were unnecessary or made in bad faith, limited dental reimbursement to 60% of an in‑network cost, denied contempt, ordered plaintiff to pay outstanding senior-year tuition, and awarded plaintiff $14,930 in attorney’s fees.
- Defendant appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Peter) | Defendant's Argument (Kyu) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying contempt for failure to pay children’s expenses | Agreement was ambiguous or plaintiff complied with its terms; no wilful contempt | Agreement was a clear, court-incorporated order and plaintiff wilfully failed to comply | No contempt: key provisions ambiguous (commencement date; meaning of “year five”); contempt requires clear, unambiguous directive and wilful breach |
| Whether the court improperly rewrote or retroactively modified the agreement by denying reimbursement for the car, college coach, enrichment program, and many small items | Many disputed items are not covered or were unnecessary; plaintiff need not reimburse for items outside intent of agreement | Court rewrote agreement to avoid reimbursing legitimate, covered expenses | Court properly construed the contract: car purchase not covered (clause covers expenses to obtain/hold license), college coach and enrichment were extravagant/unnecessary and not in good faith, and numerous small items are not “extracurricular” |
| Whether defendant was entitled to full reimbursement for out‑of‑network dental surgery | Defendant sought full reimbursement for out‑of‑network oral surgeon bills | Plaintiff arranged for in‑network care and did not consent to out‑of‑network provider; defendant should have obtained consent | Court’s factual findings sustained; under article 5.1 defendant had to obtain consent for non‑emergency, non‑routine care; plaintiff liable for 60% of cost of in‑network procedure only |
| Whether awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees under §46b‑87 was an abuse of discretion | Fees inappropriate given some relief awarded to defendant (tuition reimbursement) | Plaintiff, as prevailing party on contempt issue, was entitled to reasonable fees; defendant’s conduct (lack of good faith) supports punitive fee award | No abuse of discretion: §46b‑87 permits award to prevailing party; fees are punitive and court properly considered defendant’s conduct; $14,930 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Puff v. Puff, 334 Conn. 341 (2020) (civil contempt requires a clear, unambiguous court directive and wilful noncompliance)
- Dejana v. Dejana, 176 Conn. App. 104 (2017) (treat separation agreements incorporated into judgments as contracts and apply contract principles)
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (2009) (ambiguous contract language makes intent a question of fact; extrinsic evidence admissible)
- De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 269 Conn. 424 (2004) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts)
- Fuller v. Fuller, 119 Conn. App. 105 (2010) (trial court may make whole a party and fashion remedies even absent a contempt finding)
- Pressley v. Johnson, 173 Conn. App. 402 (2017) (agreement must be sufficiently clear to support contempt)
- Gil v. Gil, 110 Conn. App. 798 (2008) (§ 46b‑87 allows attorney’s fees to prevailing party in contempt proceedings)
- Esposito v. Esposito, 71 Conn. App. 744 (2002) (attorney’s fees under § 46b‑87 are punitive; court may consider party’s behavior)
- Eckert v. Eckert, 285 Conn. 687 (2008) (trial court lacks authority to rewrite separation agreements but must interpret them as contracts)
- Kirwan v. Kirwan, 185 Conn. App. 713 (2018) (child’s independent right to support cannot be circumscribed by parents’ agreement)