Laurie A. Laporta v. Mario J. Laporta (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The parties were divorced on March 20, 2009.   Since that time they have engaged in at least three full-blown evidentiary hearings concerning various motions.   On March 8, 2011 they came to court again and spent three hours in a hearing on three motions filed by the plaintiff.   Each motion will be discussed below.

Motion for Contempt (# 173)

The plaintiff's motion for contempt sets forth three separate ways in which the defendant is alleged to have failed to make court-ordered payments.   First, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to obey the court's order of March 15, 2010 that he pay an alimony arrearage of $1,058 at the rate of $100 per month commencing April 15, 2010.   The plaintiff's testimony concerning this arrearage was that she thought he only made “four or five” payments but had no records.   This indefinite testimony does not meet the test of clear and convincing evidence necessary to establish that the defendant is in contempt of court.   Fortunately for the plaintiff, the defendant admitted that he had not paid the last three payments and did not offer any plausible reason for the non-payment.   Therefore, the court is able to find that the defendant is in contempt of court for this violation and that he owes the plaintiff $300.

Next, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to abide by the court order of March 15, 2010 that he make two monthly installments of $123 each toward an unreimbursed medical arrearage.   The plaintiff's testimony on this point was even less certain than the first claim.   She said she “can't remember” if he made these payments.   Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the defendant did not admit to missing these payments.   Therefore, the court is unable to find the defendant in contempt on this point.

Finally, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to make up a deficiency created when his wage withholding order was set at $388 per week when it should have been $410 per week.   This mistake has been corrected but the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in contempt for failing to make up an arrearage which built up until the correction.   Again, the plaintiff's testimony failed to establish the amount of the arrearage.   She testified that she did not know how long the defendant had made payments which were $22 short each week.   The defendant testified that he had made up any temporary shortfall.   The plaintiff has failed in her burden to prove a wilful failure to obey the court's order.

To summarize, the defendant is in contempt for failing to pay $300 of the order made by the court on March 15, 2010.   The defendant is ordered to purge this contempt by paying $300 to the plaintiff on or before May 1, 2010.   No attorneys fees are awarded for bringing this motion.

Motion for Contempt (# 174)

In this motion for contempt the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is in contempt for failing to obey a court order dated June 30, 2010 confirming an arbitration order dividing the personal property of the parties and ordering that the plaintiff retrieve her share of the property on August 9, 2010.   The plaintiff alleges that many of the items of personal property awarded to the plaintiff were missing or were damaged.

The court heard testimony that on August 9, 2010 the plaintiff went to the marital property to pick up her property.   The plaintiff testified that the defendant failed to return certain things including a six-year-old computer, monitor, router, and printer;  a mahogany shelf, a corner shelf, some cooking pans;  a picture frame;  glass on a framed poster.   The defendant admitted that he did not return these items because he had not received some of the items assigned to him.   In other words, he engaged in self-help to exert leverage over the plaintiff.   Clearly, this was unjustified and in violation of the court's order.

The plaintiff gave her opinion concerning the value of the withheld items.   The court has judged the credibility of the testimony and finds the following to be the fair values:  computer and related equipment—$500;  mahogany shelf—$200;  corner shelf—$200;  picture frame—$50;  glass for framed poster—$50.   The defendant is found to be in contempt.   The defendant is ordered to pay $500 to the plaintiff for attorneys fees which she incurred having to bring and argue this motion.   He is ordered to purge himself of contempt by paying the total of $1,500 to the plaintiff at the rate of $100 per month commencing on April 1, 2011.

The plaintiff also testified that some of the personal property returned to her was broken.   She gave her opinion of the costs of repair.   None of this evidence will be credited as reliable.   It is pure speculation as to the cause of the damage to the property.

Motion for Order re Post–Secondary Education (# 175)

The separation agreement which was incorporated in the judgment in this case includes a provision that the court would retain jurisdiction over the issue of the children's post-majority education expenses pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b–56c.   The plaintiff seeks an order defining the relative contributions of the parties to the education of the oldest daughter, Lauren, now a senior at Southern Connecticut State University.

The testimony was that the parties shared Lauren's expenses for her freshman year.   However, for her sophomore, junior and senior years Lauren has taken Stafford loans in her own name, and the plaintiff has taken Stafford loans in her name totaling $22,540.   These loans were paid directly to the university for Lauren's tuition as well as room and board for a portion of these years.   The loans in the plaintiff's name will soon go into pay status.

The order of the court is that the plaintiff and defendant equally share the repayment of the Stafford loans in the plaintiff's name only, i.e. $22,540.   When the plaintiff receives a notice that a payment is due, she shall make the payment and send a copy of the bill and her check to the defendant who shall reimburse the plaintiff for one-half of the payment within 15 days of receipt of the bill and the plaintiff's check.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

Pickard, John W., J.