Daniel Lynch v. Laurie Lynch (2012)

Memorandum of Decision

Plaintiff filed this Motion for Contempt (court document # 227.89) on July 7, 2011, claiming that the defendant failed to comply with a previous court order that defendant provide an accounting of expenses paid for certain household expenditures that were the subject of a court order.   On January 18, 2012, the court heard argument from both parties regarding ten pending motions in this matter, eight of which had been filed by plaintiff.

The history of this claim and portion of the pertinent rulings in this case are as follows:

Agreement, dated December 12, 2008—Court document # 111

The parties reached a pendente lite agreement regarding payment household expenses.  “The parties shall equally pay the following household bills:  mortgage, including real estate taxes, and homeowner insurance, all children's expenses, all utilities, life, health and auto insurance premiums and groceries for the family.”   This is the original order complained of in plaintiff's later motions.

Judgment of Dissolution, dated September 14, 2009—Court document # 139

The court modified the previous order from an equal split of expenses to plaintiff being responsible for 60% of the expenses and defendant responsible for 40%.   Decision was rendered on the above date;  plaintiff has appealed the trial court's decision and that appeal is still pending.

Motion for Accounting, Post–Judgment, dated December 16, 2010—Court document # 179

Plaintiff's motion requesting proof of expenses paid by defendant for the household pursuant to the original court order (# 111).   The court granted plaintiff's request and ordered “the defendant to provide an accounting of the claimed expenses she has paid since the date of decision within seven business days.”

Motion for Contempt, dated May 9, 2011—Court document # 219

Plaintiff filed a claiming he was not provided with an accounting as ordered in court document # 179.   On May 26, 2011, the court (Owens, J.) denied this motion;  his order included a finding that “a worksheet has been provided.”

Plaintiff's present motion for contempt requests the same relief as in his motion dated May 9, 2011 (court document # 219).   Subsequent to Judge Owen's ruling on May 26, 2011, plaintiff has in fact raised this same issue multiple times in variously titled motions.   While the motions may be titled as contempt motions or use judicial forms as a facesheet;  within the body of these motions plaintiff raises the same claim regarding the defendant's failure to provide an accounting of expenses in nearly identical language.   The court has ruled on this issue (court document # 219) and this court has been presented with no legal reason to modify existing orders.

Plaintiff has filed over 50 motions with this court since the May 2011 decision.   Many are “duplicative, redundant and without merit.”  Strobel v. Strobel, 92 Conn.App 662, (2005).   Plaintiff has been advised by previous courts that with the exception of alimony or support orders, the Superior court will not hear argument regarding these motions until the Appellate court has rendered a decision.   Pursuant to the Strobel decision, this court holds that until decision has been released by the Appellate Court, the plaintiff shall not file any motions or pleadings with this court without prior approval of the family court administrative judge.

Klatt, J.

Klatt, Corinne L., J.