*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** PETER J. SCOTT v. KYU SCOTT (AC 44304) Prescott, Elgo and Suarez, Js. Syllabus The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for contempt. The defendant had alleged that the plaintiff wilfully refused to comply with several financial orders in the parties’ separation agreement, which was incorporated into the dissolu- tion judgment, by failing to reimburse her for certain expenses she unilaterally incurred on behalf of the couple’s minor children, including, inter alia, $5775 for dental surgery, $51,500 for the cost of a private college coach and $9000 for an automobile, as well as the significant cost of a twenty-two day enrichment program in Jackson, Wyoming. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s actions did not rise to the level of contempt. It determined that the separation agreement was ambiguous as to the date on which certain of the parties’ financial obligations were to commence and that the defendant sought reimburse- ment for items that either were not covered by the agreement or for which she had not obtained the plaintiff’s consent, as required under the agreement. The court further concluded that certain of the defendant’s expenditures were extravagant and unnecessary and that she had not acted in good faith under the agreement. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly rewrote the separation agreement, thereby denying her reimbursement from the plaintiff, and improperly awarded him attorney’s fees pursuant to the statute (§ 46b- 87) applicable to contempt proceedings. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for contempt, as the separation agreement was ambiguous regarding the date on which the plaintiff was to commence paying the children’s tuition as well as certain other financial obligations; although the agreement contained a definitive commencement date for the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals