If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dissolved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant's motion for contempt for her failure to pay certain expenses related to their minor child. The parties had entered into a post-dissolution agreement pursuant to which they agreed that they would share the expenses for certain of their child's extracurricular activities. The relevant provision of the agreement provided that the parties would share equally the child's "agreed upon activity expenses concerning swimming, guitar, tennis and summer camps." The trial court approved the agreement and entered it as an order of the court. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for contempt alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the court's order because she had not paid her share of the child's activity expenses. The court granted the motion in part, finding that the language of the provision clearly and unambiguously stated that the parties previously had agreed that their child would participate in the listed activities and that they would both pay one half of the expenses for those activities. The court concluded that the plaintiff was in contempt of the court's order for willfully refusing to pay her share of the child's activity expenses.

On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court improperly determined the language of the subject provision was unambiguous because it was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, and, therefore, the judgment of contempt was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for a hearing at which the parties would have the opportunity to present extrinsic evidence regarding their intent with respect to the subject provision. The provision reasonably could have been interpreted as meaning either that the parties previously had agreed that their child would participate in the listed activities and that they would both pay one half of the expenses for those activities, as found by the trial court, or that the parties had to agree on the expenses for the listed activities prior to the plaintiff's incurring the obligation to pay one half of the expenses, as the plaintiff had argued at trial.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: Mettler v. Mettler, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 225 (May 31, 2016).