Welsh v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 09 November 2017
• Docket Number: HHDCV106012959S(X03)
• Parties: D'Anna Welsh v. William V. Martinez, Jr. et al
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court

D'Anna Welsh v. William V. Martinez, Jr. et al

No. HHDCV106012959S(X03)

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket

November 9, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT WILLIAM V. MARTINEZ, JR. (#229.00) AND ORDER OF CONTEMPT

Ingrid L. Moll, J.

Before the court is the plaintiff D'Anna Welsh's post-judgment Motion for Contempt Against the Defendant William V. Martinez, Jr. (Dr. Martinez), dated May 2, 2017 (#229.00) (motion). The motion seeks an order finding Dr Martinez in civil contempt of: (1) Judge Graham's Asset Standstill Order, which is described below; and (2) Judge Robaina's Second Asset Disclosure Order, also described below. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2017, pursuant to Practice Book § 1-13A et seq., the plaintiff filed the instant postjudgment motion for contempt and accompanying memorandum. (##229.00, 230.00.) A request for adjudication was filed on May 9, 2017. (#232.00.) On July 18, 2017, Dr. Martinez filed an objection to the motion. (#244.00.) On August 1, 2017; the plaintiff filed her reply. (#245.00.) An evidentiary hearing, approximately three hours in length, was held on August 2, 2017 (contempt hearing) during which the court heard sworn testimony and admitted into evidence numerous exhibits. The plaintiff called three witnesses David Baker, vice president of corporate security and the custodian of records of Farmington Bank; Jamie Cook manager of legal service of process and the custodian of records of People's United Bank; and Dr. Martinez. Counsel on behalf of Dr. Martinez did not call any witnesses. On August 3, 2017, following a hearing in a related matter ^[1] the court received into evidence an additional exhibit relating to the instant motion, which plaintiff's counsel inadvertently had not moved into evidence. At all relevant times, Dr. Martinez has been represented by counsel, and Dr. Martinez personally appeared at the contempt hearing.

II

FINDINGS OF FACT

Procedural Background

This matter was tried to a jury in 2012. In the operative complaint, the plaintiff asserted four counts against Dr Martinez, namely, tortious invasion of privacy, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent misrepresentation, arising out of Dr. Martinez's installing electronic surveillance equipment in the plaintiff's home and motor vehicle in order to monitor her activities.^[2] On June 25, 2012, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all counts and awarded her $2, 000, 000 in damages. Thereafter, the trial court, Robaina, J., awarded the plaintiff a sum of $360, 000 as punitive damages. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict, and Dr. Martinez appealed therefrom. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. Welsh v. Martinez, 157 Conn.App. 223, 225, 114 A.3d 1231 (2015). Dr. Martinez is aware of the judgment and its affirmance on appeal.

On July 9, 2012, the court, Graham, J., entered the following order in the above-captioned matter (herein " Asset Standstill Order"):

The Defendant William Martinez is enjoined from voluntarily transferring or encumbering any assets except business assets in the ordinary course of business and personal assets for ordinary living expenses, including court ordered alimony and child support.

(#130.50.) Dr. Martinez became aware of the contents of the Asset Standstill Order shortly after it was entered. He understood that his wages could be used only for ordinary living expenses and family court judgments.

On July 31, 2012, the court, Robaina, J., entered an asset disclosure order, which stated the following:

Plaintiff is allowed to attach up to $2 million of the defendant's property and Defendant is to provide a disclosure of assets by August 10, 2012. No wage garnishment to be sought at this time.

(#131.86.) In response thereto, on August 10, 2012, Dr. Martinez's counsel provided a letter to plaintiff's counsel identifying what Dr. Martinez regarded as non-exempt assets. The letter did not disclose, for example, a Charles Schwab pension or IRA account held by Dr. Martinez that contained over $500, 000.

On or about April 19, 2013, the plaintiff, through counsel, filed a motion for order of compliance requiring Dr. Martinez to provide a complete asset disclosure under oath. Dr. Martinez objected through counsel, arguing in part that the disclosures did not have to include exempt assets. Thereafter, on or about June 24, 2013, the court, Robaina, J., rejected that argument and entered its second asset disclosure order (Second Asset Disclosure Order), requiring quarterly asset disclosures to the plaintiff by Dr. Martinez under penalty of false statement. (#167.86.) Dr. Martinez reviewed the Second Asset Disclosure Order at the time such order entered. The Second Asset Disclosure Order provides in part that each disclosure must identify:

(a) Any and all real property, personal property, title, rights, and thing of value whatsoever, in which Defendant William V. Martinez, Jr. has an interest from the period of July 9, 2012 through the date of the disclosure;

(b) Any and all wages paid to Defendant William V. Martinez, Jr., including amounts, formulas, and their scheduled dates of disbursement, from the period of July 9, 2012 through the date of the disclosure;

(c) The financial institution, location, account number, and monthly balances of all bank or trading accounts ever held by, in the name of, or for the benefit of Defendant William V. Martinez Jr. from the period of July 9, 2012 through the date of the disclosure; and

(d) Any and all debts due and owing to Defendant William V. Martinez, Jr. from the period of July 9, 2012 through the date of the disclosure.

Id. ¶ 1. The order further provides in part:

Upon disclosure, the defendant may claim exemption as to any asset. For any such claim, a hearing shall take place to determine the status of such asset. If such asset has been attached or encumbered in any way by the plaintiff, the defendant shall be entitled to relief as allowed by law.

Id., p. 11. Stated differently, Dr. Martinez was required to include in the court-ordered disclosures not only non-exempt assets but also any assets that Dr. Martinez maintained were exempt.^[3]

Because the plaintiff's motion challenges Dr. Martinez's handling of five categories of assets (i.e., wages, three BMWs, a Prudential retirement account, guns, and a $50, 000 promissory note), the court's factual findings relating to each category are addressed separately below.

Wages

In October 2012, Dr. Martinez was on the payroll of Cardiothoracic Surgery, P.C., where he enjoyed an annual salary in the range of $800, 000 to over $1 million. (He remained on the payroll of Cardiothoracic Surgery, P.C. until he began employment at Saint Francis Hospital, specifically, Saint Francis Medical Group, Inc., in or about January 2015, where his annual salary was and remains fixed at $1.2 million and results in an annual after-tax amount of over $700, 000.)

In October 2012, Dr. Martinez was the sole holder of an account at Farmington Bank, into which he had regularly deposited his earnings from Cardiothoracic Surgery, P.C. In October 2012, the account was " frozen" as a result of the collection efforts of counsel for the plaintiff. Immediately upon learning of these efforts, Dr. Martinez deposited his wages into a different account at a different bank under a different name, namely, an account at People's United Bank held solely in the name of his then-wife Cristina Martinez (Cristina). On October 22, 2012, Farmington Bank, having received a writ of attachment served by plaintiff's counsel, informed Attorney Jamie Mills, counsel for the plaintiff, that it was holding $26, 717.83 in response thereto. Two days later, on October 24, 2012, Dr. Martinez's Farmington Bank account (of which Dr. Martinez was the sole account holder) received, from a Wells Fargo account, an electronic funds transfer of $46, 485.00 (the description for that line item in the account statement is " Cardiothoracic S Payroll"). That same day, the credit to the Farmington Bank account of $46, 485.00 was reversed; that is, those funds were electronically withdrawn and reversed back to Wells Fargo. Dr. Martinez acknowledged arranging for the reversal of such deposit and for its subsequent deposit into a People's United Bank account held solely in the name of Cristina. Dr. Martinez had full access to Cristina's People's United Bank account, including the use of an ATM card bearing Cristina's name, as well as possession of the password information to access the account online. Thereafter, Dr. Martinez directed that the entirety of his wages be deposited into that account through early 2017. He directed that his wages be deposited in such a fashion to avoid the freezing of his funds and so that he could still have access to such funds.

Meanwhile, beginning in September 2013, Dr. Martinez's quarterly asset disclosure identified People's United Bank accounts ending 9743 and 7658; however, the disclosure did not indicate that Dr. Martinez was not an account holder. Accordingly, in or about December 2013, plaintiff's counsel served a writ of attachment on People's United Bank directed to Dr. Martinez's purported accounts ending 9743 and 7658. People's United Bank responded that it " found that William Martinez Jr. do[es] not maintain accounts at People['s] United Bank."

The plaintiff moved, and the court admitted, into evidence, among other things, bank records from Cristina's People's United Bank accounts--of which she was the sole account holder--showing Dr. Martinez's...