M.B. v. S.A.

194 Conn.App. 727

222 A.3d 551

M.B.

v.S.A.^*

AC 42237

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 10, 2019

Officially released December 10, 2019

M.B., self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

David M. Moore, for the appellee (defendant).

DiPentima, C.J., and Lavine and Bishop, Js.

BISHOP, J.

The self-represented plaintiff, M.B., appeals from the trial court's orders, rendered in a child custody action, granting certain postjudgment motions for contempt filed by the defendant, S.A., and awarding her attorney's fees as a sanction against the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the court erred in (1) finding him in contempt for nonpayment of support orders when the support orders were on appeal, (2) prioritizing the resolution of motions for contempt over a simultaneously pending motion pertaining to child visitation (3) failing to consider financial affidavits he had submitted, (4) awarding the defendant attorney's fees in connection with the granted contempt motions, and (5) accepting the defendant's affidavits of fees with incorrect docket numbers. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as evidenced by the record, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant are an unmarried couple who are the parents of their minor child, born in June, 2014. After the child's birth, the plaintiff filed an action seeking joint legal custody of the child. By way of a memorandum of decision issued on September 7, 2016, the trial court, Tindill, J. , awarded sole legal and primary physical custody to the defendant. The award provided for the plaintiff to have parenting time on weekends, restricted entirely to the town of Greenwich. The plaintiff, who resided in New York City at the time, thereafter rented an apartment in Greenwich solely to exercise parenting time with his child. The award further ordered the plaintiff to pay $253 per week to the defendant in child support payments. Additionally, the court granted a number of motions for contempt filed by the defendant that were predicated on the plaintiff's failure to pay unreimbursed medical expenses and work-related child care, as ordered pendente lite, and the court calculated an arrearage. On November 18, 2016, the court issued a corrected memorandum of decision in which, inter alia, it corrected various grammatical and calculation errors.

Prior to the issuance of the corrected memorandum of decision on November 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal on September 22, 2016, asking this court to consider whether the trial court erred in not considering how its orders impacted his rental expenses for the Greenwich apartment that he is required to maintain to have parenting time with his child.

During the pendency of that appeal, between October, 2016 and June, 2017, the defendant filed multiple postjudgment motions for contempt against the plaintiff for failing to make both arrearage payments and child support payments as required by the September 7, 2016 support orders. On June 16, 2017, the court ordered the defendant to submit an affidavit regarding attorney's fees she had incurred in pursuing her postjudgment motions for contempt.

On December 11, 2017, the court granted one of the defendant's motions for contempt, filed on October 17, 2016, finding that the plaintiff had failed to pay his required share of the work-related child care expenses. Following the plaintiff's failure to pay the arrearage by the date set by the court, January 31, 2018, the court ordered the plaintiff to be incarcerated, setting a purge amount of $15,000. The plaintiff paid the purge amount that same day and was released from custody. On April 16, 2018, the court granted four more of the defendant's postjudgment motions for contempt, two of which were filed on December 21, 2016, and two others that were filed on March 9, 2017, determining that the plaintiff had failed to pay work-related child care costs, unreimbursed medical expenses, child support payments, and child support arrearages.

In May, 2018, this court issued its decision in the prior appeal. This court determined that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to analyze whether the plaintiff's significant visitation expenses warranted a deviation from the child support guidelines and remanded the matter for a new hearing on this issue. This court otherwise affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Also in May, 2018, the trial court issued an order vacating its findings of arrearages with respect to the expenses underlying the defendant's postjudgment motions for contempt.¹ On October 15, 2018, the trial court ordered $9825 in attorney's fees to be paid by the plaintiff in connection with expenses incurred by the defendant for litigating those same motions for contempt. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

We first set forth the applicable standard of review. "The well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases is that this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts.... As has often been explained, the foundation for this standard is that the trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the personal factors significant to a domestic relations case, such as demeanor and attitude of the parties at the hearing.... In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did....

"[Further, in] determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.... [W]e do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart , 57 Conn. App. 335, 336–37, 748 A.2d 376, cert. denied, 253 Conn. 918, 755 A.2d 216 (2000).

I

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion by granting the defendant's postjudgment motions for contempt against him for failing to make required support payments, as set forth in the September 7, 2016 support orders, while the plaintiff's appeal of the support orders was pending. We disagree.

It is well established in our case law that filing an appeal from a family support order does not automatically stay the order's payment requirements. See Wolyniec v. Wolyniec , 188 Conn. App. 53, 55 n.2, 203 A.3d 1269 (2019) ; see also Practice Book § 61-11.² Therefore, if a party in a family matter wishes the court to stay a family support order during an appeal, that party must file a motion to stay the order pursuant to § 61-11 (c).

Here, the support orders at issue were entered on September 7, 2016, and the plaintiff filed his appeal from the support orders on September 23, 2016. The plaintiff never moved for a stay of the court's support orders and, as a result, his weekly support payments were still due as scheduled. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant's postjudgment motions for contempt against the plaintiff for his failure to make timely support payments.

II

The plaintiff's second claim is that the court abused its discretion when it scheduled and adjudicated the defendant's postjudgment motions for contempt before resolving the defendant's motion for modification of the visitation schedule. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that because the court appeared to prioritize the resolution of the motions for contempt over the motion to modify the visitation schedule, the court abused its discretion. This claim is baseless.

It is well recognized that "[t]he trial court has a responsibility to avoid unnecessary interruptions, to maintain the orderly procedure of the court docket, and to prevent any interference with the fair administration of justice.... In addition, matters involving judicial economy, docket management [and control of] courtroom proceedings ... are particularly within the province of a trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Yuille v. Parnoff , 189 Conn. App. 124, 128, 206 A.3d 766, cert. denied, 332 Conn. 902, 208 A.3d 659 (2019). "The court inherently holds reasonable control over its schedule." Lane v. Lane , 84 Conn. App. 651, 654, 854 A.2d 815 (2004).

Here, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion when it held hearings to resolve the defendant's numerous contempt motions filed immediately following the court's November 18, 2016 corrected memorandum of decision, but prior to the resolution of the defendant's motion for modification of visitation. The guardian ad litem filed a motion for contempt against the plaintiff on December 20, 2016. The defendant's postjudgment motions for contempt at issue were filed on December 21, 2016, and March 9, 2017. The defendant's motion for modification, filed January 30, 2017, was first scheduled for a hearing on March 20, 2017, and was thereafter continued to May 8, 2017, and then to November 27 through 29, 2017. On November 27, 2017, the defendant filed a motion for a continuance, and the court reassigned the hearing on the motion for modification to December 27 through 29, 2017.

In the meantime, the court scheduled a hearing on May 11, 2017, to hear the postjudgment motions for contempt filed against the plaintiff by the defendant and the guardian ad litem. The hearing relevant to the guardian ad litem's motion for contempt concluded on June 16, 2017, and the motion was granted on December 3, 2017. The hearing relevant to the defendant's motions for contempt at issue concluded on July 14, 2017, and the motions were later granted on December 11, 2017, April 16, 2018, and April 17, 2018.

As we have noted, the court has broad discretion to manage its...