Felicia Pierot v. Cary Brody (2011)

ORDER

This action comes before the court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt (doc. # 424).   More specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to comply with the order of the court (Munro, J.) (doc. # 419) that the Defendant inventory and then turn over to a third-party bailee all watches within Defendant's possession or control.   At the hearing on this motion, there was no dispute as to the order of the court, nor was there any dispute that a specific watch, one A. Lange Sohne watch, had not been inventoried or turned over.   On November 10, 2010, Defendant had testified he owned such a watch but did not know where it was.   The sole point in dispute was whether or not the watch in question had been within Defendant's possession or control such that he could and should have inventoried and turned it over.

At the hearing, the court heard distinctly different testimony from the witnesses.   Plaintiff described that on January 24, 2011, while picking up a child at the defendant's residence, she clearly saw the watch in question on the defendant's wrist.   Plaintiff stated this occurred at the front door when Defendant came to kiss his daughter goodbye.   She also stated that she recognized the watch as they had picked out the watch together when it was purchased.

Defendant on the other hand, testified that on January 24, he did not go to the front door, but remained in the kitchen area.   He stated that this was his practice as there had been allegations of domestic violence and at least one protective order entered and he did not want to run the risk of any new claimed incidents.   He claimed he had not seen the watch in some time, about two years, but had not filed any insurance claim until just after Plaintiff alerted him she had seen the watch.   He has never filed a police report, though the insurance company has requested he do so.

Each of the parties also produced a witness to support their testimony as to what occurred on the date in question.

In Connecticut, the standard of proof required of movant seeking a finding of contempt is that of a preponderance of the evidence.  Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn.App. 828, 832 (2001).   Given this standard and having had the opportunity to observe the candor, credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, the court finds:

(1) by order of the court (Munro, J.) dated November 29, 2010, defendant was ordered to inventory and turn over to a third-party bailee all watches within his residence, possession or control;

(2) the order in question was clear and unambiguous and clearly extended to the watch in question;

(3) on or before January 24, 2011, the defendant had possession of a particular watch, one A. Lange Sohne watch;

(4) the Defendant had the ability to comply with the order of the court;

(5) the defendant did not comply with the order;  and

(6) Defendant has failed to demonstrate or establish any defense or justification for his failure to comply with the order of the court.

The court finds the defendant in contempt of court.

The court orders the defendant to immediately turn over to the designated bailee the watch in question.   If Defendant has not turned over the watch within ten (10) days of the date of this order, Defendant shall turn over to the bailee, the sum of $36,000 in cash or certified, cashier or bank check or provide a list of all his personal property together with any security interests or encumbrances thereon to the plaintiff's counsel.   Plaintiff's counsel shall thereafter select such items as may effectively substitute in value for the watch in question.   The parties shall reappear before the court on May 16, 2011 to address any claim for fees or costs incurred on this motion and for further action as needed.

BY THE COURT

Wenzel, J.

Wenzel, William, J.