Shawn Tittle v. Susan Skipp–Tittle (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTIONS # 465, # 467 and # 457

Re Motion # 465 Post-judgment Motion to Reinstate Alimony

The defendant, Susan Skipp, seeks to have her suspended alimony order reinstated.   It would serve no useful purpose to recite the long and tortuous history of this complex case.   A reading of Judge Robert Resha's “Memorandum of Decision” dated December 28, 2011 (pleading # 241), his “Response to Request for Clarification” dated August 23, 2013 (pleading # 501), and Judge Lynda Munro's “Memorandum of Decision” of October 16, 2012 (pleading # 379), would suffice to bring the matter into focus.   The latter decision is on appeal in the Connecticut Appellate Court—as of this writing it has not been assigned for argument.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing on the Motion for Reinstatement of Alimony, and several times during the hearing, the court indicated that the motion as filed was inappropriate and should have been a Motion for Modification.   Despite those admonitions, the defendant insisted that her motion was proper and she did not want it considered a modification.   The court then informed the recalcitrant defendant that she could fully present her Motion to Reinstate Alimony as she deemed appropriate and the court would rule on it.   Furthermore, she was advised that the court would also treat the reinstatement motion as a Motion for Modification and would rule accordingly.

Regardless of how the motion was styled, reinstatement or modification, the evidence clearly indicates that the defendant has not sustained her burden.   As a result, motion # 465 is denied.

For the benefit of the parties, jurists who may be required to hear future motions, and the Appellate Court in the event of yet another appeal, some findings on matters occurring subsequent to

2. Contrary to the expressed order of the court, the defendant posted derogatory material about the plaintiff on the internet (see plaintiff's Exhibits # 5 and # 6).   This activity occurred after numerous earlier postings which contributed to the plaintiff leaving his lucrative employment at the Danbury Hospital.

3. The defendant filed an appeal and an amended appeal of Judge Munro's decision to the Appellate Court as well as two emergency appeals to the Supreme Court.   The Appellate Court appeals are still pending but the emergency appeals were denied.

4. On May 10, 2013, the defendant instituted a fraud action against the plaintiff and his former employer Danbury Hospital which action is still pending in the Judicial District of Danbury.   It should be noted that hospital privileges, which are not automatically granted, are important to a surgeon in private practice.

5. The defendant filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court listing the plaintiff as a creditor.   While she was discharged in June, parts of the petition are still pending as was pointed out during the hearing.

6. On August 15, 2013, the defendant was arrested for stalking the plaintiff, a misdemeanor.   A protective order in favor of the plaintiff, his present wife, and the two children of the parties was issued.   The charge is still pending.

7. On September 9, 2013, the defendant was again arrested, this time for a felony, violation of the protective order.   The charge is still pending.

8. The defendant was terminated from her $63,000 per year job because of the pendency of two criminal matters as well as her frequent absences from her employment to attend to legal matters.

9. No child support from the defendant, either by voluntary contribution or by court order, was ever paid to help support the children of the parties.   The burden of support has fallen solely on the plaintiff who has been assisted to a large extent by his present wife.

10. The plaintiff remains the primary care giver for the two minor children of the parties, ages 11 and 13, who continue in court ordered therapy and have had more than their share of disruption in their young lives.   These duties also impact on the plaintiff's opportunity to expand his practice, increase his income and pay alimony.

Re Motion # 467 Plaintiff's Post–Judgment Motion for Child Support

The plaintiff, Shawn Tittle, seeks an order of child support from the defendant mother, Susan Skipp.   While it is the duty of both parents to support their children, the defendant was recently terminated from her employment.   It should be noted she lost her job as a result of her own actions, some of which are recited above.   She now collects unemployment compensation of $519 per week.

It is abundantly clear that the children of the parties for whom support is sought, need a mother who is stable, productive and in control of her conduct.   At the present time, from the court's observation, the defendant is wanting in those areas.   She testified that she takes medication daily and is under the care of a psychiatrist to help her.   For the best interests of the children, her funds would be better spent trying to get well.   Therefore, a deviation from the guidelines presumptive amount is warranted and no child support is ordered at this time.

Sadly, the defendant often presents herself as being angry, vengeful and vindictive.   However, the good news is that the defendant also appears to be an intelligent, articulate and tenacious woman.   We can only speculate on how much better off her children, the father of her children, and she would be if those attributes were applied to the therapy necessary to gain control of her emotions and actions.   Contact with her children whom she has not seen in over a year, will undoubtedly require a demonstration of good mental health.

Re Motion # 457 Motion for Contempt

The former guardian ad litem, Mary Brigham, seeks payment of her court ordered fees.   She was permitted to file such a motion after making a proper request for a status conference.   In addition, she requested a finding from the court on the characterization of the fees.

After reviewing the file and listening to the parties, the court makes a finding that the fees awarded to the guardian ad litem are in the nature of child support and not dischargeable in bankruptcy.   Numerous Superior Court cases support this position for the reasons described therein. (see Wissner v. Wissner, Superior Court, Regional Family Trial Docket at Middlesex, Docket No. FA 04 0491308, February 10, 2005, Abery–Wetstone, J.)

Further, during the contempt hearing, the court was informed by both the defendant and the guardian ad litem, that the United States Bankruptcy Court had discharged the defendant in bankruptcy but reserved decision on the guardian ad litem's fees until after the ruling from the Connecticut Appellate Court on the defendant's appeal.   As of this writing, the appeal has yet to be assigned for disposition.

As a result, the guardian decided not to proceed with her contempt motion at this time.   The court informed her that if she was successful in both the Connecticut Appellate Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court, meaning that her fees were not discharged, she could re-file her Motion for Contempt without the necessity of filing a request for a status conference.   The latter order is in the interest of judicial economy in this pleading filled case.

FUTURE MOTIONS

The court reminds the parties that all future motions must first comply with the order entered on December 20, 2012 (pleading # 417).   To amplify what has already been said, either party submitting a motion from this order forward shall through the clerk's office submit all pleadings for review by the Presiding Family Judge or its designated judge in its absence.   All such motions shall be appended with a request for leave to file such motion which the court will decide on the papers.   The specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief shall be sworn to in an affidavit by the moving party or other person having personal knowledge of the facts recited therein.   No such motion shall be calendared without the approval of the court.

The purpose of this order is to discourage the filing of frivolous, unwarranted, baseless, and time consuming motions.

It is well established that “[t]he power of a domestic relations court to act equitably is the keystone to the court's ability to fashion relief in the infinite variety of circumstances which arise out of the dissolution of a marriage ․ Decision making in family cases requires a flexible, individualized adjudication of the particular facts of each case ․” (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Taff v. Bettcher, 243 Conn. 380, 387, 703 A.2d 759 (1997).  “Courts are allowed leeway in developing remedies for repetitive, abusive or vexatious litigation ․ Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources.   A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice ․ That power may be expressly recognized by rule or statute but it exists independently of either and arises because of the control that must necessarily be vested in courts in order for them to be able to manage their own affairs so as to achieve an orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Concepcion v. Caban, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. FA–90–0308116–S (February 14, 2006, Dewey, J.)

CUTSUMPAS, JTR

Cutsumpas, Lloyd, J.T.R.