Gabriel v. Gabriel
Citation | 152 A.3d 1230,324 Conn. 324 |
Decision Date | 28 December 2016 |
Docket Number | SC 19571 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Richard P. GABRIEL v. Diana K. GABRIEL |
Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque, Hartford, and, on the brief, Joseph T. O'Connor, Stamford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Norman A. Roberts II, with whom, on the brief, was Tara C. Dugo, for the appellee (defendant).
Rogers, C.J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, Robinson, Vertefeuille, Js.
The plaintiff, Richard P. Gabriel, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court granting his motion for modification of unallocated alimony and support, and denying the motion for contempt filed against him by the defendant, Diana K. Gabriel. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly reversed the judgment of the trial court. Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court improperly: (1) denied the defendant's motion for contempt, which was based on the plaintiff's unilateral reduction in the unallocated alimony and child support; and (2) granted the plaintiff's motion for modification of unallocated alimony and child support. We agree with the plaintiff's claim regarding the motion for contempt, but disagree with his claim regarding the motion for modification. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following facts and procedural history:
Footnotes altered.) Gabriel v. Gabriel , 159 Conn.App. 805, 807–10, 123 A.3d 453 (2015).
Thereafter, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court improperly modified her alimony award and denied her motion for contempt. Id., at 807, 123 A.3d 453. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court improperly modified the unallocated alimony and child support award without considering what portion of the original award constituted child support and what portion constituted alimony, improperly failed to consider the child support guidelines when fashioning the new award, and "focused on the fact of the defendant's cohabitation in modifying the alimony portion of the unallocated award." Id., at 818, 123 A.3d 453. The Appellate Court further concluded that the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion for contempt because the trial court had incorrectly concluded that § 46b–224 suspends child support payments "by operation of law ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 820, 123 A.3d 453. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for a new hearing on the plaintiff's motion for modification and for reconsideration of the defendant's motion for contempt.
Thereafter, we granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to three issues. Gabriel v. Gabriel , 319 Conn. 948, 125 A.3d 527 (2015). Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The plaintiff first claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion for contempt because, at the time the plaintiff unilaterally reduced the unallocated alimony and support payment, there was no clear order of the trial court regarding his support obligation. The defendant responds that the Appellate Court properly reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for contempt filed against the plaintiff. Specifically, the defendant asserts that the trial court should have found the plaintiff in contempt for unilaterally reducing the unallocated alimony and support payments to the defendant after he became the primary custodial parent because the court had not modified its previous order requiring the plaintiff to pay unallocated alimony and child support. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court with respect to the contempt order.
We begin with general principles and the applicable standards of review. "Contempt is a disobedience to the rules and orders of a court which has power to punish for such an offense. ... A contempt judgment cannot stand when, inter alia, the order a contemnor is held to have violated is vague and indefinite, or when the contemnor, through no fault of his own, was unable to obey the court's order....
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pasco Common Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Benson
...... and every provision must be given effect if it is possible to do so." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gabriel v. Gabriel , 324 Conn. 324, 341, 152 A.3d 1230 (2016). "[Additionally], in construing contracts, we give effect to all the language included therein, as the law of contract ......
-
Birkhold v. Birkhold
...to do or refrain from doing an act or series of acts." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gabriel v. Gabriel , 324 Conn. 324, 333, 152 A.3d 1230 (2016).Addressing the defendant's motion for contempt, the trial court found that "the obligation in question, to pay alimony p......
-
Richards v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC
...contract is ambiguous, the determination of the parties' intent is a question of fact" to be submitted to a jury. Gabriel v. Gabriel , 324 Conn. 324, 341, 152 A.3d 1230 (2016). "In choosing among the reasonable meanings of a promise or agreement or a term thereof, that meaning is generally ......
-
Puff v. Puff
...to do or refrain from doing an act or series of acts." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gabriel v. Gabriel , 324 Conn. 324, 333, 152 A.3d 1230 (2016) ; see also Powell-Ferri v. Ferri , 326 Conn. 457, 468, 165 A.3d 1124 (2017) (civil contempt may be founded only on clear......