Rosario v. Rosario
| Decision Date | 16 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | AC 41942 |
| Citation | 232 A.3d 1105,198 Conn.App. 83 |
| Parties | Alvin J. ROSARIO II v. Thyjuan ROSARIO |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Alvin J. Rosario II, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
Lavine, Devlin and Bear, Js.
In this postdissolution of marriage matter, the self-represented plaintiff, Alvin J. Rosario II, appeals from the orders of the trial court granting two motions for contempt, docket entry #154.79 (motion #154.79) and docket entry #156 (motion #156), filed by the defendant, Thyjuan Rosario.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred when it rendered judgment finding him in contempt because (1) those motions for contempt previously had been denied by the court and, thus, they were not properly before the court, and (2) the defendant did not serve the plaintiff with motion #156. Because we conclude, with respect to the first claim, that the court's January 19, 2017 order effectively vacated its January 3, 2017 order denying the motions, and, with respect to the second claim, that it is inadequately briefed, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record contains the following facts and procedural history relevant to the plaintiff's claim. The marriage of the parties was dissolved on December 4, 2012. The plaintiff was ordered to pay various financial obligations relating to the marital home existing on December 4, 2012.2 Specifically, in the dissolution judgment, the court, Turner, J. , ordered that the plaintiff pay the following outstanding bills: United Illuminating Company (electric company) bill in the amount of $1170; Bridgeport Water Pollution Control Agency (sewer company) bill in the amount of $650; and Aquarion Water Company bill in the amount of $514.44. Approximately eight months later, the defendant filed a motion for contempt, docket entry #123.79, because the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's orders. Subsequently, on July 11, 2013, Judge Turner found that the plaintiff either paid the bills in part or not at all. As a result, the court ordered the plaintiff to make an immediate payment to the electric company in the amount of $945 and to make arrangements for payment to the sewer company in the amount of $550. Additionally, the plaintiff was ordered to contact Hoffman Fuel Oil Company and enter into a written agreement for payment of a $200 obligation.
On July 9, 2016, the defendant filed another motion for contempt, docket entry #136.89, as a result of the plaintiff's failure to obey the trial court's orders.3
Because the defendant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, the motion was denied. Approximately two months later, on September 15, 2016, the defendant filed another motion for contempt, motion #154.79, and a motion to open judgment, docket entry #155.79, with respect to the denial of the motion #136.89. In motion #154.79, the defendant alleged that, as of September 1, 2016, the plaintiff had not paid the sum of $6511.12, the total amount she alleged to be owed by her to the sewer company as a result of the plaintiff's contumacious behavior. On October 27, 2016, the defendant filed a second motion for contempt, motion #156, claiming that due to "fees, fines, legal fees, marshal fees and court fees" having been applied to the original outstanding balance of $650, the new outstanding balance to the sewer company was $8599.93.4 The parties were due to appear before the court on January 3, 2017, for a continued hearing on the defendant's then pending contempt motions—#154.79 and #156. Following the defendant's failure to appear at the time the motions were called, the court denied the contempt motions and the motion to open judgment. On that same day and previously, however, the defendant had filed a motion for a continuance of the January 3, 2017 hearing date because she had employment obligations that she claimed she could not miss. Notwithstanding the aforementioned denials, the defendant's motion for a continuance was granted in part by the court, M. Murphy, J. , on January 19, 2017, subject to an instruction that the parties contact the family caseflow office for a firm date to continue the pending hearing on the defendant's motions.5 The third and final day of the evidentiary hearing took place on April 13, 2017, with both parties present in court.
On June 28, 2017, the court, Sommer, J. , issued a memorandum of decision on the defendant's pending contempt motions, motion #154.79 and motion #156.6 In its memorandum, the court recited the findings in its July 11, 2013 memorandum of decision and concluded that the posture of the case and position of the parties was largely unchanged—the original court orders were clear and unambiguous, and the plaintiff had not yet paid all of his court-ordered sewer company obligations. Additionally, the defendant was left to pay those obligations herself, which resulted in nonpayment, followed by a lien being placed on the former marital real property, and the institution of foreclosure proceedings. The court found that, although he was ordered to pay the sewer company, the plaintiff, instead, "travelled, took motorcycle trips and attended professional sporting events." The court found that the defendant's testimony was credible, and that the plaintiff's testimony was not credible. The court concluded that the plaintiff wilfully failed to make payments that were ordered by the court despite having the financial means to do so. The court further concluded that the plaintiff was responsible for the sewer company obligations then totaling $6461.12 and, therefore, ordered him to pay that amount no later than June 29, 2017.
In the year following the court's June 28, 2017 memorandum of decision, the defendant filed several other motions for contempt based on the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the court's order to pay the total amount then due to the sewer company. As a result of his failure to pay, the plaintiff was incarcerated three times. Each time he was incarcerated, the plaintiff paid the purge amount, which ranged from $500 to $1000.
This appeal was filed on August 3, 2018. On November 14, 2018, this court ordered Judge Sommer to rectify the record by correcting its June 28, 2017 memorandum of decision, in which it, among other things, referenced the incorrect docket entry numbers when it identified the motions for contempt that were the subject of her ruling. Judge Sommer, on December 11, 2018, issued a rectified memorandum of decision, replacing the incorrect reference to docket entry #141 with an accurate reference to motions #154.79 and #156, the motions at issue in this appeal.7
On appeal, the plaintiff first claims that there was no motion pending before the trial court on which it could find him in contempt. More specifically, he claims that the court erred when it found him in contempt pursuant to motions #154.79 and #156, because the court had denied those motions after the defendant failed to appear in court to prosecute her claims on January 3, 2017. The record reflects, however, that on that same day and previously, the defendant had filed a total of three motions for a continuance and, as a result of those motions, the defendant appeared before the court on January 19, 2017, at which time the court ordered the parties to obtain a hearing date from the family caseflow office to continue the hearing on the defendant's pending claims. In its November 22, 2019 articulation, the court explained that, on January 19, 2017, when the defendant's motion for a continuance was granted in part, and the parties subsequently were ordered to obtain a hearing date from the family caseflow office, such order effectively vacated the January 3, 2017 order, which denied the defendant's motions for her failure to appear. Therefore, with the January 3, 2017 denials having been vacated, the defendant's motions for contempt, #154.79 and #156, were still properly pending before the trial court when the hearing continued on April 13, 2017, in the presence of both parties.8
We, therefore, reject the plaintiff's first claim.
The second claim that the plaintiff advances in this appeal is that he did not receive motion #156 by service of process.9 The plaintiff, however, devotes only one sentence, in his thirty page brief, to this claim. "Claims are ... inadequately briefed when they ... consist of conclusory assertions ... with no mention of relevant authority and minimal or no citations from the record ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Estate of Rock v. University of Connecticut , 323 Conn. 26, 33, 144 A.3d 420 (2016). "Where an issue is merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conroy v. Idlibi
...the claims raised in the appeal on the basis of the record and the defendant's brief and oral argument. See Rosario v. Rosario , 198 Conn. App. 83, 84 n.1, 232 A.3d 1105 (2020).2 The dissolution court, Carbonneau, J. , found that the defendant had left the marital residence just prior to th......
-
Batista v. Cortes, AC 43244
...court. We therefore decide the appeal on the basis of the record and the father's brief and oral argument. See Rosario v. Rosario , 198 Conn. App. 83, 84 n.1, 232 A.3d 1105 (2020).2 The father asserted that the mother had struck the child, which the mother acknowledged having done.3 The mot......
-
Zheng v. Xia
...We have considered the claims raised by the plaintiff on the basis of his brief and the record. See, e.g., Rosario v. Rosario, 198 Conn. App. 83, 84 n.1, 232 A.3d 1105 (2020). 2. The parties' relationship is highly litigious. The trial court docket contains more than 270 entries, with at le......