Mazza v. Mazza
Citations
- 216 Conn. App. 285
Syllabus
The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for contempt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated a provision of the parties' separation agreement, which had been incorporated into the judgment of dissolu- tion, requiring the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 50 percent of ''all awards'' that the defendant received from a workers' compensation proceeding that had been initiated when the defendant suffered a work- related injury during their marriage. Following the judgment of dissolu- tion, the defendant entered into a stipulation that resolved the workers' compensation proceeding. The defendant thereafter failed to pay the plaintiff 50 percent of the workers' compensation award, totaling approx- imately $250,000, which the defendant received pursuant to the stipula- tion. The defendant, however, used a portion of the workers' compensa- tion award to purchase a property in Kent. Having determined that the separation agreement clearly and unambiguously defined the term ''all awards'' to include the money the defendant received as part of the stipulation, the trial court granted the motion for contempt and ordered the defendant either to pay the plaintiff the money to which she was entitled or, as alternative relief, to transfer to the plaintiff the title to the Kent property. The defendant was ordered not to transfer, mortgage or in any way diminish the value of the Kent property prior to his full compliance with the court's contempt order. On the defendant's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for contempt, that court having correctly determined that the parties' separation agreement was unambiguous in that the phrase ''all awards'' properly included the defendant's compensation payment he received as a result of the stipulation: although the parties' settlement agree
Judges: Elgo; Suarez; DiPentima
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.