Opinion
No. FA 99-0117474
January 5, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant appeals from orders of the magistrate court. Defendant presented oral argument on the petition for appeal. Plaintiff, represented by the Office of the Attorney General, did not appear for argument.
II. ISSUES
Did the magistrate court exceed its authority when it authorized a "continuing purge" amount even after defendant had purged himself of the original contempt?
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 25, 2006, the magistrate court found defendant-respondent in contempt for failure to pay his weekly support obligation. The magistrate remanded defendant to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction with a purge amount of $1,000.00. The magistrate ordered a review date for October 4, 2006 and set a continuance date of November 14, 2006 if the respondent "purges out." The magistrate ordered, "[a] continuing purge is payment of the weekly support order."
On October 4, 2006, the magistrate court, in its order, stated the defendant "partially purge [sic] his contempt." It continued the case until November 14, 2006 as previously ordered by the Chief Magistrate. The defendant paid the purge amount.
IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"A family support magistrate may determine whether or not an obligor is in contempt of the order of the Superior Court or of a family support magistrate and may make such orders as are provided by law to enforce a support obligation . . ." C.G.S. § 46b-231(m)(7). "The court's authority to impose civil contempt penalties arises not from statutory provisions but from the common law . . . The penalties which may be imposed, therefore, arise from the inherent power of the court to coerce compliance with its orders." Keeney v. Buccino, 92 Conn.App. 496, 513 (2006). "[N]o person shall continue to be detained in a correctional facility pursuant to an order for civil contempt for longer than thirty days, unless at the expiration of such thirty days, he is presented to the judicial authority. On each such presentment, the contemnor shall be given an opportunity to purge himself or herself of the contempt by compliance with the order of the judicial authority. If the contemnor does not so act, the judicial authority may direct that the contemnor remain in custody under the terms of the order of the judicial authority then in effect, or may modify the order if the interests of justice so dictate." Connecticut Practice Book Section 25-63(b). "In civil contempt proceedings, the contemnor must be in a position to purge himself . . . [o]therwise, the sanctions imposed would cease to be remedial and coercive, but would become wholly punitive in actual operation." National Loan Investors, L.P. v. World Properties, 79 Conn.App. 725, 738 (2003). The opportunity to purge the contempt affords the opportunity to comply with court orders after a finding of contempt. See Roos v. Roos, 84 Conn.App. 415, 417 (2004); Mulholland v. Mulholland, 229 Conn. 643, 646 (1994); Emerick v. Emerick, 28 Conn.App. 794, 797 (1992).
V. ANALYSIS
The magistrate found defendant in contempt for failure to pay his support obligation and it set a purge amount of $1,000.00. Defendant paid the purge amount after being incarcerated. The magistrate also set a "continuing purge" amount equaling the amount of his weekly support obligation. No statute or practice book rule authorizes a "continuing purge." The term suggests that a contemnor, once he has paid the purge amount the judicial authority has set, may not be purged of a past contempt until he meets all future obligations. Such a device is not authorized by statute nor supported by the case law.
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The magistrate exceeded his authority in setting a continuing purge amount.
VII. JUDGMENT
The orders dated September 25, 2006 and October 4, 2006 are reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.