Opinion
NNHFA165036603S
05-19-2017
Matthew Wills v. Tara Wills
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Shluger, Kenneth L., J.
The plaintiff initiated this action for dissolution of marriage. The defendant wife was served, filed her appearance, but did not attend the scheduled hearing before the undersigned on May 17, 2017. An unopposed, limited contested trial was held before the undersigned on said date.
The court has fully considered the criteria of General Statutes § § 46b-81, as well as the evidence, applicable case law, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and arguments in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that issue in this decision.
Essentially, the plaintiff is seeking a return of personal papers and effects, which he claims are or were in the possession of the defendant. Robert Lang, family services officer, testified that he spoke to the defendant who informed him that at one time, she had those possessions, but that they had been placed in a storage facility and as a result of no one paying the bill, the storage facility destroyed said items. The items include the plaintiff's power of attorney, the plaintiff's work papers, birth certificates and a leather briefcase. The plaintiff claims that as a result of the defendant failing to safeguard his possessions, she is in violation of the standing automatic orders and should be sanctioned in the amount of $1, 000.00. The court finds that the automatic orders were not intended to, nor do they in fact offer such relief.
The purpose of the automatic orders in marital dissolution actions is to maintain the status quo of the assets within the marital estate so that they may be distributed by the court at the time of dissolution. See Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 317 Conn. 223, 233, 116 A.3d 297 (2015); Parrotta v. Parrotta, 119 Conn.App. 472, 483, 988 A.2d 383 (2010). As provided in bold print at the end of Practice Book § 25-5, the " [f]ailure to obey [the automatic] orders may be punishable by contempt of court . . ." Practice Book § 25-5(c). " Judicial sanctions in civil contempt proceedings may, in a proper case, be employed for either or both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order, and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained . . . [If] compensation is intended, a fine is imposed, payable to the complainant." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) DeMartino v. Monroe Little League, Inc., 192 Conn. 271, 278-79, 471 A.2d 638 (1984). Accordingly, in the context of a dissolution action, if a party is found in contempt of court for willfully violating the court's automatic orders, the court is empowered to order a variety of remedial sanctions, including imposition of penalties and fines. O'Brien v. O'Brien, 161 Conn.App. 575, 128 A.3d 595 (2015).
Under the present circumstances, it does not appear that the defendant willfully violated the automatic orders by failing to safeguard the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff had just as much, if not more, of an interest and duty in preserving his own property, even if he was incarcerated. The court finds that the defendant was served, has notice of these proceedings and elected to not appear. The court further finds that all statutory stays have expired and the allegations of the complaint are proven and true and dissolution may enter. The court will enter no financial orders.