Donna Rosehill v. Scott Rosehill (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff has filed a motion for contempt dated December 31, 2013 that has been properly served.   Each party is represented by counsel.   Both counsel are different from those appearing at the time of parties' dissolution.   The parties entered into a separation agreement dated July 9, 2001 that provided in Article 3.5 that the husband and wife agree to be equally responsible for one-half of Cady's college expenses.   The defendant now claims that the literal interpretation of this provision means that he is responsible for only twenty-five percent of Cady's educational expenses and thus the wife would only be required to pay for twenty-five percent.   There is no explanation as to who would pay for the remaining fifty percent.   The Court has carefully read and considered the parties' separation agreement.   It provides that the husband agrees to pay one-half of the child's summer camp expenses, one-half of her othodontic expenses, and forty-eight percent of uninsured medical expenses (the wife to pay fifty-two percent).

The Court finds that it was the intention of the parties that they would be equally responsible for one-half of Cady's college expenses subject to the cap set forth by the University of Connecticut.

The Court must consider whether the language in the separation agreement is plain and unambiguous and whether the language in the agreement can be given its rational and ordinary meaning.   The Court cannot torture words to impart ambiguity.   An agreement is ambiguous if the intent of the parties is not clear.

However, the contract or agreement must be viewed in its entirety with each provision read in light of the other provisions.   This Court has been able to resolve any ambiguity in the parties' agreement by considering the other provisions here in before set forth in construing the intent of the parties.

Plaintiff's motion for contempt is denied without prejudice and shall be heard on April 10, 2014 at 9:30 A.M. If the requisite payment is made prior to said date and the Court is notified by counsel for the plaintiff the parties need not appear.

OWENS, J.T.R.

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