Brian J. Donnell v. Karen W. Donnell (2011)

ORDERS RE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT POSTJUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR ARTICULATION, CLARIFICATION AND REARGUMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S POSTJUDGMENT MOTION FOR ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY/ACCESS

The plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt, Postjudgment dated October 6, 2011.   Said motion had been accompanied by an Ex Parte Motion to Enjoin and for Order which was granted in an order dated October 7, 2011 and is as yet uncoded.   Both parties filed a series of motions for articulation and/or clarification as well as motions to reargue.   Additionally, the plaintiff filed a Postjudgment Motion for Order Regarding Custody/Access dated October 14, 2011.   Those motions, none of which have been coded as of this date, are as follows:

1) Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt, Postjudgment dated October 6, 2011;

2) Plaintiff's Motion to Reargue Postjudgment dated October 6, 2011;

3) Plaintiff's Motion for Correction, Articulation and Clarification Postjudgment dated October 6, 2011;

4) Defendant's Motion to Reargue, Postjudgment dated October 13, 2011;

5) Defendant's Motion for Articulation and Clarification, Postjudgment dated October 13, 2011;

6) Plaintiff's Postjudgment Motion for Order Regarding Custody/Access dated October 14, 2011;

7) Defendant's Amended Motion for Articulation and Clarification, Postjudgment dated October 17, 2011 and

8) Defendant's Second Amended Motion for Articulation and Clarification, Postjudgment dated October 18, 2011.

All motions were heard by the court in Middletown on the afternoon of October 18, 2011.

1) Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt Postjudgment is granted as follows:

a) The court finds that the defendant's removal of furniture and other household furnishings and personal property on October 4, 2011 was in violation of the court's orders as stated in its Memorandum of Decision dated September 30, 2011;

b) The court finds that the defendant had, or should have had, a clear understanding of the orders regarding said property and that her removal was a willful failure to obey said orders;

c) The defendant is ordered within seven (7) business days from October 18, 2011 to arrange for all removed items, not including her clothing or personal possessions, to be returned to the marital home by the same professional moving company, Advantage Movers in Avon, that did the removal and she shall be solely liable for the costs of such move as well as any storage fees incurred in the interim;

d) The moving company is to be given the contact information for the plaintiff who will arrange the date and time for the delivery and shall direct the movers as to where to place the items within the marital home;

e) The defendant is not to be at the marital home at the time of the delivery;

f) The cost of such move shall be borne solely by the defendant;

g) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff within fifteen (15) business days from October 18, 2011 the sum of $3,451 representing the plaintiff's legal fees for prosecuting this motion and his cost to his housekeeper for cleaning the mess left by the defendant upon her vacating the marital home on October 4, 2011;

h) The defendant may return to the marital home at a date and time agreed to in advance by the plaintiff to retrieve additional personal property such as clothing and medical records.   Such visits shall not exceed one hour in length and the defendant must be accompanied by her brother Ted, her counsel's paralegal or other person approved in advance by the plaintiff;

2) Plaintiff's Motion to Reargue is granted as follows:

a) The court's order # 9 is changed as to the amount of weekly alimony from $2,939.77 to $2,821.85.   Said amount is based on the plaintiff's regular salary of $366,840 per annum.   Plaintiff shall, in addition, pay to the defendant as additional alimony 40% of any end of year salary he may receive along with a copy of the check stub for verification of the amount being paid.

b) The rest of order # 9 remains unchanged.

3) Plaintiff's Motion for Correction, Articulation and Clarification Postjudgment is granted as follows:

a) Order # 9.d is corrected as to the salary used in the calculation.   The correct number is $409,340 and not $309,340;

b) Order # 11 is clarified so that the plaintiff may not move to modify his alimony obligation based on an increase in the defendant's income unless her income is in excess of $35,000 annually;

c) Order # 7 is clarified in as much as the order requires the parties to share the total costs of the minor child's final year at Choate which may require some credits or reimbursement since some of the cost has already been paid;

d) Order # 8 is clarified inasmuch as the order requires the parties to share the total costs of Michael's final year at Brown University, as allowed by the restrictions in CGS § 46b–56c, which may require some credits or reimbursement since some of the cost has already been paid;

e) No other requested clarifications or articulations sought in the motion are granted.

4) Defendant's Motion to Reargue, Postjudgment is granted as follows:

a) The court will retain jurisdiction over the sale of the marital residence and all related issues until such time as the property is sold and conveyed to the new owners;

b) The motion is denied as to all other requests.

5) Defendant's Motion for Articulation and Clarification, Postjudgment is granted as follows:

a) Order # 26.a means exactly what it says.  “The defendant shall be entitled to claim as hers any furnishings that originated from her grandparents.”   Items that she received from her parents, but did not originate from the prior generation were not included in the order.   Additionally, her right to claim such items is not a guarantee that the arbitrator will award her such items in the overall distribution of personal property;

b) Reasonable cost as used in order # 23 means a cost not to exceed 7.5% of the defendant's income, not restricted to earned income;

c) Order # 12.a allows a relocation allowance toward her “immediate expenses reasonable and necessary” to her leaving the marital home on an expedited basis as ordered in # 12.   Appropriate proof of such expenses would be receipts of the charges.   Hotel charges and food charges, not including popcorn in her room, would be considered “reasonable and necessary”;

d) The cost of cell phone service and computer service for Michael and Sean are to be included in the total cost of their respective educational costs;

e) All other requests in said motion are denied.

6) Plaintiff's Postjudgment Motion for Order Regarding Custody/Access is denied.   The plaintiff has sole legal and physical custody of the minor child and as such may control the defendant's access to the child as long as he allows “liberal and reasonable” access.   If the defendant believes she is being denied such access she has sufficient remedies and if she seeks to employ such remedies, the plaintiff will have his opportunity to explain and justify his actions.

7) Defendant's Amended Motion for Articulation and Clarification, Postjudgment is granted as follows:

a) Order # 10 is clarified to the extent that plaintiff's alimony obligation shall begin with his first paycheck following the date of the judgment which according to the testimony was October 14, 2011.   The payment due on October 14, 2011 was his first payment and it was a prospective payment.   This start date for the alimony was, in part, the reason the court awarded the defendant the relocation allowance of $2,500;

b) The balance of the Amended Motion has been dealt with in ¶ 4 above.

8) Defendant's Second Amended Motion for Articulation and Clarification, Postjudgment is granted as follows:

a) Order 19.c is clarified to include all gains and losses in the value of the items until time of distribution;

b) The balance of the Amended Motion has been dealt with in ¶ 4 and ¶ 5 above.

9) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff legal fees in the amount of $975 within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this order.   Said amount representing three hours of time expended by plaintiff's counsel at the rate of $325 per hour for the additional work required by the late disclosure of exhibits during the trial.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT.

Adelman, J.

Adelman, Gerard I., J.