Yolanda Krawiec v. Thomas Krawiec (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, POSTJUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt, postjudgment on October 19, 2009.   An evidentiary hearing on the motion was held on November 16, 2009.   The plaintiff and defendant testified.   No exhibits were introduced.   The plaintiff claims that the defendant violated the separation agreement, filed October 22, 2003 and made an order of the court, with regard to certain custodial accounts created for the benefit of the children.

The court order at issue states in relevant part as follows:

Custodial Accounts.   The parties acknowledge the existence of certain custodial accounts for the benefit of their children.   The husband and wife shall each be named as joint trustee or custodian on such accounts.   All such funds shall be used solely for the benefit of the child named on that account, and no withdrawal shall be made without consent of both parties.   In the event of any dispute over a withdrawal, the parties agree that the purpose of said accounts are in the nature of support for their children, and this court shall have continuing jurisdiction to decide such matters.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is in contempt of said order because, as stated in her written motion, “[I] was never notified when they were cashed in.”   The plaintiff further alleges that the court order requires that “[I] was to be notified when the children's accounts were used.”   The custodial accounts at issue were described by the plaintiff as “savings bonds for college.”   The so-called “college savings bonds” were purchased for the parties' children, Jennifer, Peter and Scott.   The plaintiff, as well as the defendant, are named as “custodians” on specific bonds.   Some of the bonds have already reached maturity, and the plaintiff alleges that she was not notified that the bonds had matured, or that the funds had been provided to the children.   The plaintiff claims that the court order requires that she been informed when the bonds reached maturity, and that the bonds had to be used toward college tuition.   The plaintiff acknowledged, however, that she did not notify the defendant when the bonds on which she was custodian matured and the funds were utilized.

The plaintiff misapprehends both the court order, and the nature of the bonds at issue.  “A contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.”  Gina M.G. v. William C., 77 Conn.App. 582, 592 (2003).

The court's order of October 22, 2003 simply states that “all such funds shall be used solely for the benefit of the child named on the account, and no withdrawal shall be made without the written consent of both parties.”   (Emphasis added.)   Thus, the court order does not specify that the funds are to be used solely for college tuition, but merely in general terms the “benefit of the child.”   More importantly, there was no evidence presented as to a “withdrawal” by the defendant of any funds prior to their maturity date.   Apparently, the bonds reached their maturity date and were cashed.   Absent evidence of any withdrawal prior to maturity, the plaintiff is not entitled to notification by the terms of the court order.   Pursuant to the Connecticut Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, “the custodian shall transfer in an appropriate manner the custodian property to the minor ․ upon the minor's attainment of twenty-one years of age.”  C.G.S. 45a-559e.

Although the dates of birth of the children are contained in the judgment file, no evidence of the precise maturity dates of the “college bonds” was presented.   Based on the forgoing, the Motion for Contempt, postjudgment, is denied.

VITALE, J.

Vitale, Elpedio N., J.