Esther Y. Campion v. Keith G. Campion (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter comes before the court on cross motions for contempt.   The defendant filed his motion (# 138) on June 29, 2010, with allegations that the plaintiff had not paid her share of various tax obligations as called for under the terms of their divorce judgment.   The plaintiff filed her motion (# 139) claiming that the defendant had not paid his fair share of the tax obligations and that he had not paid half of a legal bill for the services of a criminal attorney representing their daughter Jessica (DOB 6/5/94).   The parties agreed to present their case regarding the taxes through legal argument only and the court heard brief testimony as to the attorney fee issue.

The parties stipulated at the hearing that the total tax due to the IRS was $34,000 and that the judgment called for an equal split of that obligation or $17,000 each.   This obligation related back to tax years 2005 and 2006.   The defendant represented without objection that he paid the IRS a total of $20,912.55 or $3,912.55 over and beyond his $17,000 share.   The plaintiff has paid a lesser amount and is on an installment plan with the IRS for her share.   There was no evidence or representation as to what her balance with the IRS was, but she has paid $1,736 in a lump sum and starting in May 2010, has paid $189 on a monthly basis.   The court has no information regarding any additional fees and/or interest payments that may be charged, if any, to the plaintiff because of this installment payment plan.

The taxes due to the State of Connecticut are approximately $6,100.¹  Each party is, therefore, obligated in the amount of $3,050.   The defendant paid a total of $3,250 resulting in an overpayment of $200.   The plaintiff paid a total of $3,750 or an overpayment of $700.

Netting out the two overpayment amounts owed to each party, the plaintiff owes to the defendant the sum of $3,412.55 as to the state and federal tax obligations stemming from the divorce judgment of September 27, 2007.

As to the issue of the legal fees owed to Attorney Thomas Fiorentino for the representation of the party's minor child, the parties both point to a ruling made by the court (Epstein, J.) on January 28, 2009.   In that ruling, the court ordered, inter alia, “The parties will split the criminal attorney fees 50/50.”   The testimony of both parties indicated that the minor child had been arrested as a juvenile for a variety of charges and was being represented in juvenile court by Attorney Fiorentino.   There is no dispute that the parties shared equally his fee of approximately $1,500 for that work.   The attorney's billing record (Defendant's Exhibit “A”) shows that the work on this file designated as “Matter No. 001” was completed on January 29, 2009.   At some time later, additional work in Juvenile Court was done and designated “Matter No. 002” (Plaintiff's Exhibit # 4).   That record showed that a total billing of $3,425 was incurred through April 30, 2010.   There is no reference to a balance owing from Matter No. 001 and the testimony of the parties indicated that those fees had been paid in full.   The court is being asked to interpret the order of January 28, 2009, and decide if it applied to Matter No. 002 as well as to Matter No. 001.

In closing argument, both counsel agreed that neither party exhibited a willful disregard for the orders of the court and neither was looking for a finding of contempt against the other.

Having reviewed the evidence submitted, including the testimony of both parties, and having reviewed the original judgment as well as the later order entered on January 28, 2009, the court orders the following:

1.  The plaintiff shall reimburse to the defendant the sum of $3,412.55 at the rate of $30 per week until paid in full.

2. The legal fees incurred for “Matter No. 002” were not covered nor contemplated by the court's order on January 28, 2009.2

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Adelman, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The defendant claimed the amount due was $6,100 and the plaintiff claimed it was $6,060.39.   The court will use the higher, but rounded amount for convenience..  FN1. The defendant claimed the amount due was $6,100 and the plaintiff claimed it was $6,060.39.   The court will use the higher, but rounded amount for convenience.

FN2. This order is not to be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff cannot file a motion seeking reimbursement for the second legal bill..  FN2. This order is not to be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff cannot file a motion seeking reimbursement for the second legal bill.

Adelman, Gerard I., J.