226 Conn.App. 752
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- The case involves the dissolution of marriage between Francis Mark Wald (plaintiff) and Anne Louise Cortland-Wald (defendant).
- The parties entered into a pendente lite agreement in 2019 regarding financial support.
- In 2021, they signed but later withdrew a dissolution agreement; the court found it unenforceable.
- Post-trial, the court awarded joint custody of the minor child, awarded the defendant portions of plaintiff's military pension and GI Bill benefits, and set child support below statutory guidelines and delayed its commencement until after the marital home was sold.
- The defendant also filed motions for contempt alleging failures to comply with pendente lite and automatic orders, and to compel discovery; some were denied and one was granted.
- The defendant appealed the judgment as to dissolution, financial orders, and postjudgment orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Deviation from child support guidelines | Shared custody increases plaintiff’s costs; defendant has sufficient means | No evidence shared custody changes costs; deviation lacked required findings | Trial court improperly deviated without requisite findings; remanded for new financial orders. |
| 2. Delay of child support until house sale | Plaintiff pays all household expenses, offsetting support | Delaying child support forces choice between appeal and support; improper under law | Improper to delay child support without findings; must be timely and justified per guidelines. |
| 3. Failure to hold plaintiff in contempt (pendente lite) | Later agreement and court orders made obligations unclear | Plaintiff should have followed old support orders after later agreement deemed unenforceable | Not contempt; later agreement and orders rendered obligations ambiguous. |
| 4. Contempt—automatic orders (buying/selling cars) | Plaintiff’s car activities were continuing normal practice | Actions violated automatic orders regardless of past pattern | Not contempt; transactions were in usual course of business under law. |
| 5. Attorney’s fees for discovery violations | Fee award was reasonable given cases involved | $1,000 fee too low versus legal expenses incurred | No abuse of discretion; court properly limited fees to those for proven contempt only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Bemer, 215 Conn. App. 504 (explains Audubon Parking Associates hearing requirements)
- Blondeau v. Baltierra, 337 Conn. 127 (states core policy underlying enforcement of child support orders)
- Mulholland v. Mulholland, 229 Conn. 643 (importance of timely child support payments)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (child support guidelines must guide awards absent justification for deviation)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (requirement for on-the-record findings supporting guideline deviations)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (orders must be followed until modified or reversed)
- O’Brien v. O’Brien, 326 Conn. 81 (clarity and effect of ambiguous or superseding support orders)
- Leonova v. Leonov, 201 Conn. App. 285 (usual course of business exemption from automatic orders)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (attorney’s fees in contempt found only for conduct proven on contempt)