Argued
February 4, 2019
Appeal
from Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and
tried to the jury before Robaina, J.
Page 719
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 720
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 721
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 722
Jeffrey J. Mirman, with whom were David A. DeBassio and, on
the brief, Thomas J. Farrell, Hartford, for the appellant
(defendant).
Irve J.
Goldman, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Timothy G.
Ronan, Stamford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Lavine,
Prescott and Elgo, Js.
OPINION
ELGO,
J.
[191
Conn.App. 864] The defendant, William V. Martinez,
Jr.,[1] appeals from the judgment of the trial
court holding [191 Conn.App. 865] him in contempt for
violating the terms of an asset standstill order. On appeal,
the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found him
in contempt because that order lacked sufficient clarity and
was ambiguous, (2) failed to consider the defendants ability
to pay in imposing a compensatory fine, and (3) abused its
discretion in imposing that fine. We affirm in part and
reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
In
2010, the plaintiff, DAnna Welsh, commenced a civil action
(underlying action) against the defendant, in which she
alleged tortious invasion of privacy, negligence per se,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent
misrepresentation. At trial, the jury was presented with
"undisputed evidence" that the defendant
"conducted extensive covert surveillance of the
plaintiff over the course of several years. That surveillance
included intimate video transmissions from her bedroom and
shower, daily reports as to every notation made on her
computer, and GPS monitoring of her vehicle. The jury also
had before it evidence that although the defendant swore
under oath before the [Superior Court] at [an] accelerated
rehabilitation hearing ... that the plaintiff had
Page 723
nothing to worry about and that no further surveillance
equipment remained in the plaintiffs home, the transmissions
from her bedroom thereafter continued and the defendant
continued to receive daily e-mail reports from the spyware on
the plaintiffs computer. The jury also was presented with
evidence that despite her request for the defendant to leave
her alone, he continued to appear unannounced and uninvited
at her home. His behavior terrified the plaintiff,
particularly when he informed her that I can hear you from
outside your house. In addition, the defendants angry and
violent conduct left the plaintiff scared for her
life."[2] [191 Conn.App. 866] Welsh v.
Martinez, 157 Conn.App. 223, 241, 114 A.3d 1231, cert.
denied, 317 Conn. 922, 118 A.3d 63 (2015). The jury
thereafter returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on
all counts and awarded her $2 million in damages, the
propriety of which this court affirmed on appeal. See
id., at 240-46, 114 A.3d 1231.
After
the jury returned a verdict in her favor, the plaintiff filed
a motion with the trial court seeking punitive damages in the
amount of her attorneys fees. The trial court, Robaina,
J., granted that motion over the defendants objection
and awarded "the sum of $360,000 as punitive damages in
favor of the plaintiff."[3] As a result, the
plaintiff had an outstanding judgment against the defendant
in the amount of $2,360,000 as of December,
2012.[4]
On the
same day that the jury delivered its verdict, the plaintiff
filed two pleadings relevant to this appeal. The first was an
application for a prejudgment remedy.[5] In the second, which
was titled "Plaintiffs Motion to Prevent Defendants
Fraudulent Transfer of Property," the plaintiff alleged
that she had "a reasonable belief that [the] defendant
will attempt to fraudulently transfer property in violation
of [the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, General Statutes §
52-552a et seq.]."
On July
9, 2012, the court, Graham, J., held a hearing on
the latter motion. At its conclusion, the court entered an
order that stated: "The [defendant] is enjoined from
[191 Conn.App. 867] voluntarily transferring or encumbering
any assets except business assets in the ordinary course of
business and personal assets for ordinary living expenses,
including court-ordered alimony and child support"
(asset standstill order).[6]
Weeks
later, on July 31, 2012, Judge Robaina granted the
plaintiffs application for a prejudgment remedy. In so
doing, the court ordered: "[The] plaintiff is allowed to
attach up to $2 million of the defendants property and [the]
defendant is to provide a disclosure of assets by
Page 724
August 10, 2012. No wage garnishment to be sought at this
time." On June 24, 2013, in response to a motion by the
plaintiff, the court entered an additional order requiring
the periodic disclosure of assets by the defendant (asset
disclosure order).[7]
On May
2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a postjudgment motion for
contempt and an accompanying memorandum of law. In that
motion, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant voluntarily
had transferred more than $2 million to Cristina Martinez
(Cristina) "by depositing his monies directly into her
bank account for no valid purpose but for the purpose of
defeating [the] asset standstill order." The plaintiff
also alleged that the [191 Conn.App. 868] defendant had
"concealed and refused to disclose his personal
property, financial bank and trading accounts, and debts due
and owing to him" in violation of the asset disclosure
order. The defendant filed an objection to the plaintiffs
motion, to which the plaintiff filed a reply.
The
court, Moll, J., held an evidentiary hearing on the
plaintiffs motion for contempt on August 2, 2017. The
plaintiff called three witnesses: David Baker, the vice
president of corporate security at Farmington Bank; Jamie
Cook, the custodian of records at Peoples United Bank; and
the defendant.[8] At that hearing, the court received
undisputed documentary and testimonial evidence indicating
that, at the time that the verdict was rendered in the
underlying action in 2012, the defendant was the sole holder
of an account with Farmington Bank, into which he regularly
deposited his wages. When that account became frozen in
October, 2012, as a result of collection actions undertaken
by the plaintiff, the defendant began depositing his wages in
their entirety into an account with Peoples United Bank held
solely by his then-wife, Cristina.[9] By his own admission, the
...