Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Mathews v. Mathews

Connecticut Appellate Court · 2025 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureContemptPostjudgment enforcementcivil contemptclear and unambiguous orderwilful noncomplianceabuse of discretionproperty distribution

Facts

The dissolution judgment ordered that the plaintiff be given reasonable access to the marital residence to remove his personal property, awarded each party certain personal effects, required disputed personal property in the residence to be sold at fair market value with proceeds split equally, and required each party to send $15,000 to the defendant's counsel to be held in escrow for repairs to the residence. The plaintiff later claimed that the defendant prevented him from taking tools and equipment from the basement and then improperly disposed of them. The defendant testified that those items had been purchased with joint funds and were marital assets, not solely the plaintiff's personal property, and that she later offered him a chance to retrieve them before they were removed for no value during basement cleanup. It was undisputed that the plaintiff never paid the required $15,000 to the defendant's counsel by the court-ordered deadline, though he later paid the defendant $8000 directly.

Issue

Whether the trial court improperly denied the plaintiff's contempt motion regarding basement tools and equipment and improperly granted the defendant's contempt motion regarding the plaintiff's failure to comply with the $15,000 escrow order. More specifically, the case asks whether the relevant dissolution orders were clear and unambiguous and whether any noncompliance was wilful.

Rule

To obtain civil contempt, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence both a clear and unambiguous directive and wilful noncompliance with that directive. Whether an order is clear and unambiguous is reviewed de novo, and if it is, the trial court's wilfulness determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. A court may deny contempt when the surrounding facts provide an adequate factual basis explaining the failure to comply.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A divorce judgment in Phoenix gives Elena Ruiz "reasonable access to the Scottsdale home to remove her personal property." The judgment separately says that any other household items the parties cannot agree on must be sold and the proceeds split. When Elena tries to take a commercial sewing machine from the garage, Marcus Levin refuses, claiming it was bought during the marriage with joint funds and is marital property.

If Elena moves for civil contempt against Marcus for denying her access to the sewing machine, which is the best result?

Explanation. Civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence of a clear and unambiguous directive and wilful noncompliance. An order allowing a party to remove "personal property" is too ambiguous to support contempt when ownership of a specific item is genuinely disputed and the judgment does not specifically identify it. Here, the sewing machine's ownership is contested and the judgment also contemplates sale of disputed items, so contempt should be denied. (Derived from Mathews v. Mathews (n.d.).)