In relevant part, the agreement stated that while the husband remained unemployed, he was responsible for one-half the cost of the children’s extracurricular activities. Additionally, regardless of his employment status, the husband was required to pay three-quarters the cost of the children’s undergraduate education.

Modification Agreement

In February 2007, the parties entered into a modification agreement, which was approved by the court the following month. However, in December 2007, the wife filed a motion for contempt in which she alleged that the husband failed to comply with several obligations set forth in the separation agreement. The husband argued that because he was employed, the provision regarding extracurricular activities did not apply to him, and he contested the manner in which he was to pay for his children’s college expenses. The trial court ruled in the wife’s favor, and the husband appealed.

Separation Agreements

Separation agreements that are incorporated in a judgment of dissolution are treated as contracts, which must be construed to reflect the parties’ intent. A court will look to the language itself and ascertain a fair and reasonable construction pursuant to common, natural, and ordinary meaning and usage. In reviewing a finding of contempt, an appellate court must first determine whether or not the terms of a court order were sufficiently clear and unambiguous. It must then look for an abuse of discretion by the trial court in issuing or refusing to issue a judgment of contempt. Nonetheless, any order of the court must be followed until it has either been modified or successfully challenged.

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court agreed with the husband that the contempt finding with respect to the extracurricular activities was improper. The language of this provision was sufficiently clear – the husband would cover half the cost for as long as the husband remained unemployed. Because this condition was not met, the contempt finding constituted an abuse of discretion.

However, the court agreed that the husband was in contempt for failure to pay his portion of college expenses. The husband never disputed this fact, but he insisted that the payments be made from custodial accounts, not from him directly. Self-help does not obviate a finding of contempt, and the Appellate Court did not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.

Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well. 

If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.