Court Upholds Motion for Contempt on Failure to Divide Property

If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, motion for contempt, 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 defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dissolved, appealed to this court from the post dissolution judgment of the trial court finding him contempt and ordering him to pay the plaintiff $246,000, plus interest, in several installments. In the dissolution judgment, the trial court had ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff that sum within sixty days, and that if he did not do so, certain marital property was to be placed on the [2] market for sale and the plaintiff was to be paid with the sale proceeds. On February 10, 2014, the trial court had granted a motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff, and while the defendant’s appeal from that decision was pending, the plaintiff filed a second motion for contempt and a motion to terminate the automatic stay of execution of the February 10, 2014 order that was in place as a result of the first appeal that was filed by the defendant. Following a hearing, on August 11, 2014, the trial court declined to terminate the automatic stay with respect to the February 10, 2014 order that the defendant pay the property taxes and attorney’s fees, found the defendant in contempt for failing to make the mortgage payments and to pay the plaintiff the $246,000 for her share of the property or to put the property on the market, and ordered the defendant to make that payment to the plaintiff in installments. The defendant thereafter appealed to this court from that decision.

Held:

1. This court declined to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court, by ruling on issues that were before this court in the prior appeal that was pending, improperly terminated the automatic stay of [3] execution of the February 10, 2014 order; pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 61-14), the sole remedy of any party desiring the court to review an order concerning a stay of execution shall be my motion for review, and, therefore, if the defendant believed that the effect of the court’s ruling was a termination of the automatic stay of execution, he was obligated to file a motion for review, and his failure to do so precluded him from raising that issue on direct appeal.
2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly made a post dissolution modification of the property distribution order that was part of the dissolution judgment when it ordered him to make the $246,000 payment to the plaintiff in installments; because the defendant’s noncompliance with the dissolution judgment made strict adherence to its terms impossible, the trial court properly fashioned a remedy to protect the integrity of the original judgment, and its order did not modify the dissolution judgment but effectuated its terms by ensuring that the plaintiff would receive the $246,000 payment as required by the dissolution judgment.

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: Lawrence v. Cords, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 210 (Conn. App. Ct. May 2016)