Aimee Rochler v. Jeffrey Rochler (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S JUNE 9, 2011 MOTION FOR ARTICULATION

On January 28, 2011 this court rendered a fifteen-page written decision in the underlying dissolution action.   On page seven of the decision this court addressed the claiming of the minor children as dependents for income tax purposes;  specifically the plaintiff is to claim Haylee and Noelle and the defendant is to claim Nolan and Oliver.

On June 8, 2011 the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's contempt motion # 242.   The parties testified to the following:

The plaintiff who filed her taxes on March 1, 2011, upon advice of counsel, claimed all four children as dependents.   She credibly testified that based on her attorney's advice, the court's January ruling would only become effective commencing with taxes owed in 2012 for 2011.   She further justified her unilateral decision to claim all four children because:  (1) the plaintiff claims she paid more than fifty percent of the children's support in 2010 and the defendant owed back support and (2) the defendant's appeal stayed the court's orders.   The plaintiff never informed the defendant of her intention to claim all four children and the defendant only learned of the plaintiff's election after she had filed her taxes.

The court ruled the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof as to his contempt motion.   Specifically the court found the plaintiff's actions were not wilful.   Nonetheless, the court ordered that the plaintiff reimburse the defendant $500 within sixty days.

The plaintiff now seeks an articulation of the above order.¹

In Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 16 Conn.App. 548 (1988), the trial court erroneously determined that the plaintiff wife had engaged in contemptuous behavior.   Although the appellate court set aside the contempt finding, the appellate court upheld the trial court's orders aimed at remedying the harm sustained by the defendant.

In family matters, the court exercises its equitable powers.   The balancing of equities is a matter which falls within the discretion of the trial court.   Kakalik v. Bernardo, 184 Conn. 386, 395, 439 A.2d 1016 (1981).   For that reason, equitable remedies are not bound by formula but are molded to the needs of justice.  Hebrew University Assn. v. Nye, 26 Conn.Sup. 342, 348–49, 223 A.2d 397 (1966).

Fitzgerald at 553.

Without opining further on the propriety of the plaintiff's action (beyond finding that the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff acted contemptuously), the court exercised its equitable powers to compensate the defendant for a portion of what he was seeking in monetary relief as a result of the plaintiff's unilateral decision to claim all four minor children as dependents for the 2010 tax year.

Bernadette Conway, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was previously denied..  FN1. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was previously denied.

Conway, Bernadette, J.