McKeon v. Lennon
Decision Date | 31 December 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 34709.,34709. |
Citation | 147 Conn.App. 366,83 A.3d 639 |
Parties | Maria F. McKEON v. William P. LENNON. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Maria F. McKeon, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
Proloy K. Das, with whom was Debra C. Ruel, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
BEACH, BEAR and LAVERY, Js.
The plaintiff, Maria F. McKeon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to compel the defendant, William P. Lennon, to pay for one half of their now adult son Craig's auto insurance, pursuant to a postdissolution judgment stipulation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel on the ground of ambiguity in the stipulation; (2) even if this court agrees with the trial court that the stipulation is ambiguous, this court still should reject the defendant's interpretation that the termination of the stipulation self-executed upon Craig's graduation from high school; and (3) the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel when the defendant had not filed a motion to modify. Although we disagree with the trial court as to the ambiguity of the stipulation, we nonethelessaffirm the judgment of the trial court. 1
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of the present appeal. This matter previously was before this court in McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn.App. 585, 588, 27 A.3d 436, cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901, 31 A.3d 1178 (2011), which we cite for relevant facts:
The parties subsequently entered into a postjudgment stipulation on September 2, 2009, in order to resolve certain postjudgment issues. One of these issues was the payment of automobile related expenses for their son Craig, who was born on November 19, 1991. We note that Craig was sixteen years old when the court rendered the dissolution judgment and seventeen years old when the parties entered into the stipulation.
The stipulation provides in relevant part: “In resolution of Defendant's Post–Judgment Motion for Contempt regarding 2007 Estimated Tax Payment (# 312), the following orders shall enter:
“4.1 Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff one-half of Craig's auto insurance and one-half of the difference for insuring Plaintiff's automobile with and without Craig on the policy, provided that Plaintiff elects a $500 deductible for both Craig's policy and the policy covering her own vehicle.
“4.3 As of September 2, 2009, Defendant's share of the above-outlined auto insurance expenses is $1,247.00, payable as set forth in Section 4.5 below.
“4.4 In resolution of Defendant's claim for estimated tax payments, the parties agree that Plaintiff owes Defendant $823.00 as reimbursement for Defendant's share of the joint 2007 first quarter estimated tax payment that was erroneously credited to Plaintiff by IRS, payable, as set forth in Section 4.5 below.
“4.5 In reconciliation of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 above, Defendant shall immediately pay to Plaintiff $424.00.” 2
The defendant stopped paying for one half of Craig's auto insurance in October, 2011; Craig was nineteen years old at that time. On January 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel Re: Defendant's Refusal to Pay Car Insurance as Required by Stipulation Post–Judgment,” in which she requested that the court order the defendant to comply with his obligation under the stipulation to pay for one half of Craig's auto insurance. She stated that the defendant was refusing to pay unless she “turn[ed] over legal title of the vehicle to Craig (which the court specifically ordered was to be titled in her name), as well as [went] through the process of registering the car and unregistering the car each time Craig [came] home from school to save a few dollars.” She argued that the stipulation clearly and unambiguously requires the defendant to pay for one half of Craig's auto insurance without conditions and that the defendant should have taken legal action and not engaged in self-help in order to modify his obligation under the stipulation.
The court denied the motion without issuing a memorandum of decision on April 30, 2012. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and/or reargument on May 17, 2012, which the court denied on the same day. The plaintiff then filed the present appeal on June 4, 2012. On August 27, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for articulation, which the court granted in part on September 20, 2012. The court articulated in relevant part:
Before we address the plaintiff's claims, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, supra, 131 Conn.App. at 597, 27 A.3d 436.
In domestic relations cases, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Guaragno v. Guaragno, 141 Conn.App. 337, 344, 61 A.3d 1119 (2013).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Prymas v. New Britain, 122 Conn.App. 511, 517–18, 3 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 915, 4 A.3d 833 (2010). “To identify and to apply the appropriate standard of review, we must, therefore, initially determine whether the agreement ... was unambiguous.” Bijur v. Bijur, 79 Conn.App. 752, 760, 831 A.2d 824 (2003).
In her first claim, the plaintiff asks us to hold that the court erred in denying her motion to compel on the ground of ambiguity in the stipulation provision, because the lack of an end date in the provision clearly and plainly indicates that the parties intended for the obligation to apply “until they decided to modify their agreement.” The plaintiff further argues with respect to the court's finding of ambiguity that the court was required to determine the intent of the parties once it determined that the provision was ambiguous, but it did not do so and instead relied on the mere existence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lynch v. Lynch
...price index or his salary and wages), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 914, 840 A.2d 1173 (2004).” (Citation omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, 147 Conn.App. 366, 377–78, 83 A.3d 639 (2013).May 1, 2013 Motion for Contempt We likewise are not persuaded by the plaintiff's claim with respect to the May 1, 201......
-
Marshall v. Marshall
...initially determine whether the agreement ... was unambiguous.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, 147 Conn.App. 366, 372–73, 83 A.3d 639 (2013). Article 4 of the agreement is entitled “alimony and child support.” Paragraph 4.1 provides: “For purposes of......
-
Bolat v. Bolat
... ... 81, 104-05, 161 A.3d 1236 (2017) ... Regarding ... the interpretation of a divorce agreement, the court in ... McKeon v. Lennon, 147 Conn.App. 366, 83 A.3d 639 ... (2013), held that " In domestic relations cases, " ... [a] judgment rendered in accordance ... ...
-
O, R&L Commercial, LLC v. Colt Gateway, LLC
...determine whether the agreement ... was ambiguous.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, 147 Conn.App. 366, 373, 83 A.3d 639 (2013). “The contract must be viewed in its entirety, with each provision read in light of the other provisions ... and every provi......