Opinion
HHDCV020817002S
12-05-2019
Town of Suffield Zoning & Planning Commission et al. v. William J. Morris
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sheridan, David M., J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT [#106]
Sheridan, J.
Before the court is a Motion for Contempt filed by the plaintiff Town of Suffield Zoning and Planning Commission against the defendant William J. Morris for willfully refusing to comply with a judgment entered by this court, Shapiro, J., on January 21, 2003. The judgment required the defendant to cease storing unregistered motor vehicles and junk materials on his property at 101 South Grand Street, West Suffield, Connecticut, in violation of Sections 3.31 and 4.21 of the Suffield Zoning Regulations.
The Suffield Zoning Regulations were amended and adopted in 2004 such that the restriction against outside storage of unregistered motor vehicles is now contained in Section VII-G.
The Suffield Zoning Regulations were amended and adopted in 2004 such that the restriction against storage of junk is now contained in Section IV-L.1.n.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. The plaintiff has met its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that there has been willful disobedience of an order of this court which cannot be excused by a good-faith dispute or misunderstanding.
I. LEGAL STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF
In a civil contempt proceeding, the movant has the initial burden to show that there was a clear and unambiguous order entered by the court and that the alleged contemnor is not in compliance with that order. In re Leah S., supra, 284 Conn. 685, 693-94 (2007); Isler v. Isler, 50 Conn.App. 58, 66-69 (1998), rev’d on other grounds, 250 Conn. 226 (1999). But, "[n]oncompliance alone will not support a judgment of contempt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Prial v. Prial, 67 Conn.App. 7, 14 (2001). In order to constitute contempt, a party’s disobedience must be wilful. Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 529 (1998). "A court may not find a person in contempt without considering the circumstances surrounding the violation to determine whether such violation was willful." Wilson v. Wilson, 38 Conn.App. 263, 275-76 (1995).
Therefore, if noncompliance with a sufficiently clear and unambiguous court order is found, the court must then determine whether the defiance of the court order is willful, or whether it may be excused by a good faith dispute or misunderstanding. In re Leah S., supra, 284 Conn. at 694; see also, See Eldridge v. Eldridge, supra, 244 Conn. at 526-27. The ultimate conclusion as to whether a good faith dispute or misunderstanding will excuse a finding of contempt is within the discretion of the court. Bank of New York v. Bell, 142 Conn.App. 125, 131, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 901.
A finding of indirect civil contempt must be based on facts proven by clear and convincing evidence. Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300, 318-19 (2015). Clear and convincing proof "denotes a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution ... [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist." O’Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562, 576 (2011).
II. FACTUAL FINDINGS
A trial court presented with a motion for contempt must exercise its discretion, as informed by factual findings. Bunche v. Bunche, 36 Conn.App. 322, 325 650 A.2d 917 (1994). This court finds the following facts to have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
On May 2, 2019, James R. Taylor, Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Town of Suffield, observed and photographed several unregistered vehicles on the defendant’s property at 101 South Grand Street, West Suffield, Connecticut. Mr. Taylor also observed many items such as automobile parts and machinery that fell within the Suffield Zoning Regulations definition of "junk."
The Regulations define "junk" as "[a]ny worn-out, cast-off or discarded article or material that is ready for destruction or has been collected or stored for salvage or conversion to some use."
On September 24, 2019, Mr. Taylor returned to the defendant’s property at 101 South Grand Street, West Suffield, Connecticut and again observed and photographed unregistered vehicles and junk on the property.
On November 20, 2019, Mr. Taylor returned to the defendant’s property at 101 South Grand Street, West Suffield, Connecticut and again observed and photographed unregistered vehicles and junk on the property.
The defendant explained that much of the unregistered vehicles and junk that was observed by Mr. Taylor had been previously stored at another location, but the owner of that location sold the property, requiring the defendant to move the vehicles and other property "on short notice."
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Judgment is Sufficiently Clear and Unambiguous
In this case, the judgment that is the subject of the Motion for Contempt specifically prohibited the storage of unregistered motor vehicles or junk at the defendant’s property. There is no reason to believe the order was incomprehensible or unclear. In fact, the defendant appeared in court and evidenced a clear understanding of the judgment, acknowledging that certain motor vehicles in pictures that were unregistered had been removed, and that certain others would be registered "in short order," or would be removed from the property. The court finds that the order is sufficiently clear and precise to guide the conduct of the defendant and will support a finding of contempt for a willful violation.
B. Noncompliance
The storage of junk and motor vehicles on the property for at least five months has been established by clear and convincing evidence.
C. Willfulness
Before finding a person in contempt for the willful violation of a court order, the court must consider the circumstances and facts surrounding the violation. Wilson v. Wilson, 38 Conn.App. 263, 275-76 (1995). "It is 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Parisi v. Parisi, 140 Conn.App. 81, 85-86, cert. granted on other grounds, 308 Conn. 916 (2013). "Because the inability of [a party] to obey an order of the court, without fault on his part, is a good defense to a charge of contempt ... the [party has] the right to demonstrate that his failure to comply with the order of the trial court was excusable." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). Bryant v. Bryant, 228 Conn. 630, 637 (1994).
In the present case, the defendant appeared to be fully aware that moving the unregistered vehicles and junk from the place where they had been stored back to his property on South Grand Street would violate the terms of the judgment. The defendant never offered any defense that indicated an inability to comply with the terms of the judgment or that would justify or explain his decision. The court finds that the plaintiff has met its burden of proving willful disobedience of a court order under the heightened standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
The order entered by the court on January 21, 2003 specified a fine of $250 per day for each day a violation of the court’s order occurs.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the court finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant’s conduct in storing unregistered vehicles and junk on his property was in willful disobedience of a sufficiently clear and unambiguous court order, and that the disobedience cannot be excused by a good faith dispute or misunderstanding.
Therefore, the Court orders as follows:
1. The defendant William J. Morris is found in contempt and is subject to a penalty of $250.00 per day from May 2, 2019 until the date of this decision (216 days), for a total of penalty of $54,000.00.
2. The defendant William J. Morris shall be subject to an additional penalty of $250.00 per day for each day after the date of this decision that unregistered motor vehicles and junk materials are stored or kept on property at 101 South Grand Street, West Suffield, Connecticut, in violation of the Suffield Zoning Regulations.
3. The Town of Suffield is awarded a reasonable attorneys fee of $875.00 for the preparation and argument of this motion.