Opinion
FA084025415S
03-20-2017
Frank Tomas v. Daniela Tomas
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION #330.79, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEYS FEES
Mary E. Sommer, J.
I. INTRODUCTION AND FINDING OF FACT
On November 9, December 16 and December 20, 2016, the court conducted hearings on several pending motions. Based on the evidence presented, the court makes the following factual findings and issues orders thereon. At the time of dissolution of the parties' marriage on September 21, 2009, judgment and orders were entered in accordance with the parties' separation agreement.
Following several hearings on motions for modification, the court entered orders terminating alimony and granted physical custody of the minor child to the plaintiff father. The plaintiff father continues to have primary physical custody of the minor child and the defendant mother has limited visitation rights. The record in this case reflects that defendant mother consistently exercises visitation. The file also indicates that the mother has filed numerous postjudgment motions which have been found to lack basis in fact or law, include but are not limited to the following:
a. repeated motions to modify alimony, long after the alimony order had expired;
b. motions seeking child support during a time when the defendant mother did not have physical custody of the minor child;
c. motion to transfer, without no legal basis;
d. motion to reopen, which was eventually not pursued;
e. motion for contempt for failure to pay a mortgage, which mortgage the plaintiff continues to pay to date;
f. The defendant mother has also filed multiple grievances against the Plaintiff's counsel, all of which were dismissed.
On July 17, 2014 the Court (Klatt, J.) granted the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for sanctions/motion for order, postjudgment, recognizing the defendant's egregious misconduct and unwarranted behavior, and ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff attorneys fees in the amount of $900.00 within 60 days, or by September 15, 2014. Despite plaintiff having filed and prosecuted numerous motions for contempt and motions seeking attorneys fees, the defendant has willfully and deliberately failed to comply with any sanctions or to pay attorneys fees, which have been ordered pursuant to motions for contempt following finding that she is in willful and deliberate contempt of the orders of the court.
As a result of the above actions, the defendant is subject to a " Strobel " order, Strobel v. Strobel, 92 Conn.App. 662, 886 A.2d 865 (2005), Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr, 135 Conn.App. 337, 43 A.3d 694 (2012). Under Strobel she must request permission to file any other motions before this court. On December 11, 2015, the defendant filed another request for permission to file a motion for contempt, which the court denied. This December 2015 motion was duplicative of several other motions, all of which have been denied.
On December 18, 2015, the defendant also filed a motion to reargue the denial of her motion for permission to file another motion, which was also denied by the court (Adelman, J.) on December 24, 2015. Review of the court file also indicates that the defendant has repeatedly failed to comply with pleadings in response to plaintiff's counsel of record in violation of the Practice Book section 25-3 et seq. The court has repeatedly advised the defendant of this obligation.
The Defendant has filed eleven applications for waiver of fees, six of which have been granted. In those situations defendant has repeatedly filed duplicative motions unsupported by fact without incurring any financial responsibility. The defendant continues to demonstrate a lack of regard for the fundamental principles and protocols of the legal system at expense to the plaintiff and resources of the court.
On February 3, 2016, the Defendant filed two motions for contempt, without adhering to the requirements of the Strobel order. For this reason, on February 25, 2016, the court dismissed the defendant's motion for contempt for her failure to request permission to file in advance.
The plaintiff is seeking sanctions and attorneys fees arguing that the defendant's actions constitute an abuse of process, and continuing egregious litigation misconduct. The court concludes based on the evidence in this case that defendant's actions are calculated only to annoy, harass, and burden the plaintiff. Until the defendant has consequences for her behavior, it is likely to continue.
II. APPLICABLE LAW AND CONCLUSION
In CFM Connecticut v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375, 685 A.2d 1108 (1996), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a trial court has authority to impose sanctions including award of attorneys fees against an offending party. Subject to certain limitations, a trial court in this state has the inherent authority to impose sanctions against an attorney and his client for a course of claimed dilatory, bad faith and harassing litigation conduct, even in the absence of a specific rule or order of the court that is claimed to have been violated. Fattibene v. Kealey, 18 Conn.App. 344, 359-60, 558 A.2d 677 (1989). See also, Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834, 850 A.2d 133 (2004). Based on the facts which this court has found the Court grants the plaintiff's motion that the defendant be sanctioned for her misconduct.
The defendant is hereby ordered to pay reasonable sums for attorneys fees and costs for the defense of the two motions for contempt, and the filing of this motion. The court shall consider evidence of the amount of attorneys fees upon further submission by plaintiff.
If the defendant fails to begin making payments and to continue payment as ordered she shall be subject to incarceration for failure to comply with the orders of the court and for her egregious litigation misconduct.
The Strobel order remains in effect until further court order.