"Reliance on Counsel" Defense Had No Merit in Contempt Motion
by
Joseph C. Maya on Mar. 12, 2024
Summary: In a Connecticut Superior Court case, an ex-husband won a contempt motion against his ex-wife after her reliance on counsel defense failed in court. In 2011 a court ordered the parties to contribute money into a joint bank account for the benefit of their daughter and her living expenses. At the time of trial in 2013 the plaintiff husband had contributed almost $21,000 while the defendant wife owed the account around $27,000 in missed payments. In more than two years she had only contributed around $4,000 to the account.
At trial the plaintiff established that during the period the defendant was not in compliance with the court’s order, she was treating family members to restaurant outings, as well as paying for car washes and cell phones for her children from prior relationships. He clearly showed that she had the ability to pay but that she just didn’t do so.
When testifying on why she missed so many payments, the defendant’s testimony was inconsistent. She testified that she thought her attorney had already addressed the payment issue with the court, and that she didn’t have to pay “for him” amongst other things. Finding she was in contempt, the court noted: “the defendant does not argue that either order was ambiguous, nor would such a claim have merit. To the extent the defendant claims that she relied on her counsel to deal with the payment issue, the court finds that defense unconvincing. A party who is charged with civil contempt for failure to comply with a court order walks a precarious path by claiming reliance on advice of counsel.”
The Court’s Decision
When discussing this path the court cited Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc., where the Judge stated “that reliance on counsel is [not] necessarily a defense to a finding of contempt, but . . . it is a factor to consider in the assessment of whether a court order was willfully violated.” In the case at hand, the defendant had no factual support for the bare claim that she believed her attorney had addressed the fact of her noncompliance with a court order and because of this the court found her willfully in contempt. The court ordered her to once again make payments and ordered that the $27,000 she owed would come out of her share from the sale of the marital residence.
If you have any questions or concerns about a divorce, family, or matrimonial law issue, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced attorneys at the Maya Murphy Law office in Westport, CT.
Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.
Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well.
If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.
