Morales v. Meehan

── Morales v. Meehan ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 09, 2026 Author: Elgo Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Morales v. Meehan MARIBEL MORALES v. ROBERT F. MEEHAN (AC 47967) Elgo, Clark and Westbrook, Js. Syllabus The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dissolved, appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the plaintiff’s postjudg- ment motions for contempt. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court violated his right to procedural fairness by denying him the opportunity to testify at the hearing on one of the plaintiff’s motions. Held: The defendant’s claim that the trial court violated his right to procedural fairness was without merit, as the record indicated that the defendant agreed to have the court decide the plaintiff’s postjudgment motion for contempt on the basis of the record of a previous hearing, and there was no indication in the record that the defendant ever objected to that course of action or requested an opportunity to testify further or to present additional evidence in connection with that motion. This court declined to review the merits of the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in finding that he had been difficult and uncooperative with professionals involved with the family, as the defendant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing on which the court based its findings, thus, the record was inadequate for review. This court declined to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim that his right to procedural due process was violated by the plaintiff’s failure to disclose certain materials in a timely manner, as he did not raise the issue before the trial court. The trial court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for contempt regard- ing the marital property dissolution order, as the evidence in the record supported the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant wilfully violated the court’s order. This court declined to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly found him in contempt when the record demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to exercise a “self-executing remedy,” as the defendant failed to adequately brief this claim. The defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly modified the property distribution orders by appointing a committee to sell the marital residence after finding the defendant in contempt was unavailing, as the court’s order of relief was a proper exercise of its remedial contempt authority to effectu- ate the terms of the judgment of dissolution. Argued February 19—officially