Lakisha Carpenter–Schatzman v. Matthew Schatzman (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter was commenced by the defendant filing a Motion for Contempt on June 19, 2012.   The motion claimed that the Plaintiff disobeyed a court order dated April 7, 2011 wherein she was ordered to pay $140 per week in child support and pay a specified share of child care and medical expenses.   The motion was heard on four separate occasions, three of which involved actual testimony (9/27/12, 11/29/12, 3/22/13 and 5/20/13) On September 27, 2012, after hearing testimony from both parties, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion for contempt without prejudice.   The Court allowed the Defendant to renew his motion again after the Plaintiff provided his counsel with additional discovery materials.

The plaintiff requested documents were subsequently provided on March 22, 2013 the Plaintiff attempted to purge herself of contempt by paying $3,327.00 the amounts alleged in the Defendant's Contempt Motion dated June 19, 2012.

The Defendant filed another contempt motion on March 5, 2013 alleging Plaintiff's noncompliance with a court order dated January 11, 2012 wherein she was ordered to pay him $110 in unpaid child support, $995 in day care expenses, $1,500 and $750 in attorneys fees.   Said order was subject of an appeal taken by the Plaintiff pro se which culminated in the Appellate Court affirming this court's decision per curiam on January of 2013.   This motion was calendared to be heard on May 20, 2013 and, at the Court's instruction, to be decided on the evidence already presented to the court in connection with the Defendant's Motion for Contempt dated June 19, 2012 as well as any additional evidence that would be presented on May 20, 2013.

During the pendency of this hearing, the Defendant interjected additional claims for relief claiming unpaid child support for a period of time extending beyond the June 1, 2012 date set forth in his Motion for Contempt.   The Plaintiff objected to these claims and the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine on May 20, 2013.

On December 27, 2012 the Plaintiff testified about her assets, sources of income, debts, expenses and financial difficulties when questioned by counsel for both parties.   Her testimony revealed that her only source of income is unemployment benefits of $275 per week.   She did clarify that she had a brief temporary job, but was terminated when it was found that she had a felony record.   She explained that she no longer has any connection with or receives any proceeds from Richcar Music and that after losing everything and going to jail she did not receive any income whatsoever (from Richcar or otherwise) while she was in jail between January and November of 2010.

The Plaintiff testified that her financial deterioration caused her to sell her home on a “short sale” and that she did not receive any proceeds from that sale.   That as a result of losing her home, she had to move to Massachusetts and live with her boyfriend (later fiancé) because she could not afford to rent a place of her own.   She further testified that she had three children living with her.   One (Charles Jr.) started living with her in April 2011 and the other two (Alonzo and Summer) were abandoned by their father and left with the Plaintiff in June of 2012.   Prior to that date the father had physical custody and was pursuing child support payments in connection with these children.   The Plaintiff also explained the costs and expenses associated with taking care of her three children.

The Plaintiff testified about her efforts to do whatever she could to comply with court orders.

This Court found that with respect to the elements of contempt being satisfied there was “a problem with willfulness.”   This Court further found that the Defendant did not sustain his burden of showing that whatever assets the Plaintiff may have had many years ago were still available to her now.   This Court also found that “based on the evidence that's been submitted to the Court. [the Court doesn't] find enough evidence of willfulness her on the issue of contempt.”   Tr. 9/27/12, at 96.

After the Plaintiff provided the Defendant's counsel with additional discovery materials, further testimony and documentary evidence was submitted.   This additional evidence did not support a claim of willfulness by the plaintiff for her failure to comply with court orders.

Plaintiff testified she continued to make payments to the Defendant in the amounts she could manage to pay, given her financial hardship.   There was a disagreement as to how much the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant since July of 2012.   The Plaintiff relied on her recollection and the Defendant relied on his “folder.”   Incidentally, the Plaintiff's bank account statements which were introduced at the hearing on November 29, 2012 directly contradicted the Defendant's “folder” records.

Plaintiff's bank statements did not reveal any hidden savings.   The total amount of withdrawals from her account for the period between January 2012 and October 2012 was approximately $22,101.00.   The Plaintiff explained that most of those expenses are associated with paying utility bills, health insurance payments (approximately $600 per month), clothing, food and school supplies for her three children as well as additional expenses for her children's special needs.

The Plaintiff was also thoroughly examined on her substantial debt.   Her testimony revealed that she owes approximately $3,800 to the GAL in this case, $30,000 to the State of Connecticut, $6,800 child support arrearage to the father of Alonzo and Summer, a car loan of $22,000 and another car loan of $13,000, as well as other unspecified debts.

Plaintiff's testimony during the pendency of this hearing demonstrated that she was attempting to comply with court orders.   She borrowed money from friends in an attempt to purge herself of contempt and paid the Defendant a sum of $3,327.00 in court on March 22, 2013.   She continues to look for ways to earn additional income.   The Plaintiff searches online for job opportunities.   She went to “CT Works in Enfield” and “Future Works in Springfield” in search of work.   She “registered with about six different agencies between Boston and Fairfield County.”   She “submitted applications or resumes to different nonprofits.”   She went to job interviews and career fairs.   She talked to friends and associates of her deceased parents who are working in the entertainment industry in hopes of getting contract work.   She also enrolled in UConn in May of this year in order to obtain a bachelor's degree and make herself more marketable as a potential employee to prospective employers.   In order to pay for her tuition the Plaintiff took out student loans that covered this expense as well as purchase of books for her classes.

Under Connecticut State law, “[c]ontempt is a disobedience to the rules and orders of a court which has power to punish for such an offense.”   Martocchio v. Savior, 130 Conn.App. 626, 630 (2011).   When the conduct underlying the alleged contempt does not occur in the presence of the court, a contempt finding “must be established by sufficient proof.”  Bryant v. Bryant, 228 Conn. 630, 637 (1994).   In a civil contempt proceedings, “the movant has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a court order and noncompliance with that order.”  Parisi v. Parisi, 140 Conn.App. 81, 86 (2013).   More specifically, “the aggrieved party must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence both that the alleged contemnor violated the order and that such violation was willful.”  Campbell v. Campbell, 120 Conn.App. 760, 767 (2010).   Moreover, a court may not find a person in contempt, “without considering the circumstances surrounding the violation to determine whether such violation was willful,” because a contempt finding “is not automatic and depends on the facts and circumstances underlying it.”  Parisi, at 85.   It is always “within the sound discretion of the court to deny a claim for contempt when there is an adequate factual basis to explain the failure to honor the court's order.”  Sablosky v. Sablosky, 72 Conn.App. 408, 424 (2002).   Inability to comply with court order or make payments ordered by the court is a valid explanation for failure to comply with said orders.   See Oldani v. Oldani, 132 Conn.App. 609, 627 (2011).

In the present case, the existence of court orders and the terms thereof are not disputed.   There is a dispute between the parties as to how much the Plaintiff has paid to the Defendant in child support to date.   The Plaintiff maintains that she made weekly $70 payments to the Defendant until two weeks just before May 20, 2013.   The Defendant claims that he only received a couple payments from the Plaintiff in 2013.   There is also a dispute as to whether or not the Plaintiff paid the defendant $110 in child support from the January 11, 2012 order.   The Defendant relies solely on his “folder” records but has not met his burden.   The Defendant's “accounting” is at best questionable, thus without some additional evidence it simply does not satisfy the “by a preponderance of the evidence” test.

The Defendant did not introduce evidence, which would “prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence” that the Plaintiff's noncompliance “was willful.”   On the other hand, the Court was presented with ample evidence and adequate factual basis to explain the failure to honor the court's orders.   Sablosky, at 424.   Plaintiff's only source of income was her unemployment benefits.   The Plaintiff has substantial amount of debt which she is unable to pay.

The Defendant has not introduced any evidence that would show that the Plaintiff was indeed able to overcome her financial difficulties and comply with the Court orders.   Despite some difficult to explain electronic transactions in Plaintiff's account, the overall picture is consistent with the Plaintiff's defense.   There is no indication that she has additional hidden assets.   The Plaintiff's account statements do not reflect a lavish lifestyle or large frivolous expenses.   Most of the expenses are related to paying bills, paying expenses associated with her children, paying for groceries and paying off some of her debts.

Moreover, in light of this Court's ruling on September 29, 2012, there has been no additional evidence presented which would give reason to this Court to change its findings.   The bank statements did not reveal any additional or substantial assets of the Plaintiff.   The Twin Lyons has been shown to be a valueless entity that produces no income for the Plaintiff or anyone else.   The record now does not support a finding of contempt.

With respect to the Plaintiff's non-compliance with the January 11, 2012 order, the same financial difficulties that prevented her from paying in full her child support obligation also prevented her compliance with that order.   She could not afford to pay these additional sums of money when she could not even pay the additional $70 a week to the Defendant.

Based on the evidence and applicable law, this Court finds, as it did in November of 2012, that the Plaintiff's non-compliance with court orders was not willful and that therefore she is not in contempt of said orders.

OWENS, J.T.R.

Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.