f you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony entitlement, 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.
Although the trial court was not permitted to modify the division of property, after the dissolution became final, it was allowed to fashion an appropriate remedy to effectuate the judgment.
The following facts were relevant. In Nov. 2013, Petitioner and Respondent were divorced. The trial court ordered Respondent to pay Petitioner $246,000 within 60 days and to hold her harmless from mortgages or, alternatively, to sell real property and to pay Petitioner $246,000 plus interest from the net proceeds of sale. Petitioner filed a motion for contempt and alleged that Respondent did not comply with the court order or hold her harmless from the mortgage, and she was required to pay the mortgage in December 2013 and January 2014. The trial court found that Respondent was in contempt of court and ordered Respondent to pay Petitioner $246,000 and the amount that she paid toward the mortgage within seven days or to place the real property on the market within seven days. Respondent appealed, and the Appellate Court found that the original order concerning the mortgage was ambiguous and that Respondent should not have been held in contempt of court. Petitioner filed a second motion to find Respondent in contempt of court. The trial court found that Respondent obstructed the sale of the real property by describing each potential defect in an addendum to the listing agreement, and it ordered the parties to place the real property on the market without the addendum. The trial court found Respondent in contempt of court for failure to pay the mortgage and ordered Respondent to pay $16,783 to Petitioner for the mortgage and $246,000 in installments. Respondent appealed again and argued that the trial court wrongly modified the division of property after the dissolution, because it required that he pay Petitioner $246,000 not from the net proceeds of sale but from his own personal assets. The trial court was not permitted to modify the division of property, after the dissolution became final. It did possess the authority to issue post-judgment orders to effectuate the judgment. The Appellate Court found that the trial court fashioned an appropriate remedy to effectuate the property distribution in the dissolution judgment. “The defendant,” wrote the Appellate Court, “not only failed to comply with the judgment of dissolution, but also acted to impede the sale.” Defendant’s “contemptuous actions,” added the court, “rendered strict compliance with the judgment of dissolution impossible, and, thus, the court crafted an appropriate remedy.” Judgment affirmed.
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: CT Law Tribune
