Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Carolyn Geiger v. Arthur G. Geiger
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The parties were divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution by way of a memorandum of decision dated August 12, 2009.
Before the court is plaintiff's motion for contempt. The court issued a memorandum of decision dated July 8, 2010. At a hearing on July 22, 2010 there was no claim that the defendant failed to purge himself as related to the order of payments set forth in the court's July 8, 2010 order. In addition, at the July 22, 2010 hearing the issue relating to the life insurance policy was not pursued so the court assumes that this order has been adhered to and complied with.
The issue to be resolved is whether the defendant is in fact in contempt and the amount of attorney fees to be awarded, if any.
This court did, in its July 8, 2010 memorandum of decision, fashion a remedy that preserved the integrity of the August 19, 2009 judgment, Clement v. Clement, 34 Conn. 641 (1994), and while the issue of contempt is a close call it would serve no purpose in the present case to make such a finding. It certainly can be found that since the defendant made payments before the August 19, 2009 decision and in anticipation of a court decision, that to make adjustments subsequent to the decision might suggest that the defendant had an honest difference of opinion and was not being willfully disobedient. To inflict a finding on a professional person with no prior history of insubordinate activity would serve no purpose.
On the issue of attorney fees to be awarded the court must award fees in order to avoid the undermining of its orders but the award need not be punitive and the court must order an appropriate and reasonable attorney fee. This is based on the amount of money involved, the difficulty in obtaining relief, the complexity of the issues, and whether there is a misunderstanding by the party being charged. The court must also consider the financial circumstances of the parties.
The Court orders that an attorney fee in the amount of $3,500 shall be paid within 30 days to counsel for the plaintiff.
OWENS, J.T.R.
Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: FA084024459S
Decided: October 18, 2010
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)