Court Opinion

ID: 9960083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 12:02:01.730013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.211676
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   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 postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially 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 Connecti-
cut 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 Jour-
nal 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.
************************************************
Page 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

         2                         ,0                          0 Conn. App. 793
                                          Y. H. v. J. B.

                                        Y. H. v. J. B.*
                                         (AC 45857)
                          Bright, C. J., and Cradle and Schuman, Js.

                                            Syllabus

         The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court
             dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff and entering certain financial
             orders. Following a trial, the court granted the parties joint legal custody
             of their minor son, with the defendant having primary physical custody,
             and stated that ‘‘[n]either party has asked for alimony or child support,
             so the court will order none.’’ The court also granted three motions for
             contempt filed by the plaintiff based on its conclusion that the defendant
             wilfully had disobeyed court orders regarding the finances of the parties’
             business. As a result of the contempt, the court ordered the defendant
             to pay the plaintiff $40,000 in attorney’s fees. Held:
         1. The trial court abused its discretion in the manner in which it addressed
             child support: although the trial court stated that it declined to award
             child support on the ground that it was not requested by either party,
             a review of the trial court file revealed that the defendant consistently
             had requested child support before, during, and after the dissolution
             trial as evidenced by his filing of completed child support guidelines
             worksheets, his compliance with trial management orders requesting
             child support and arrearage, and his motion for reconsideration after
             the court issued its memorandum of decision in which he pointed out
             that he had requested child support previously; moreover, even if child
             support had not been requested, the court improperly declined to award
             child support without considering the applicable statutes and child sup-
             port guidelines, and did not discuss whether the parties’ son was a
             ‘‘child . . . in need of maintenance’’ pursuant to the criteria set forth
             in the relevant statute (§ 46b-84 (d)), or make a finding on the record,
             as required by statute (§ 46b-215b), that the application of the guidelines
             would be inequitable or inappropriate as determined under the deviation
             criteria established by the Commission for Child Support Guidelines,
             and this court was left to speculate both as to the presumptive child
             support amount and as to whether application of the guidelines would
             be inequitable or inappropriate in this case; accordingly, the case was
             remanded for a new trial on all financial orders because it was uncertain

           * In accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3) (2018), as
         amended by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022,
         Pub. L. No. 117-103, § 106, 136 Stat. 49, 851; we decline to identify any person
         protected or sought to be protected under a protection order, protective
         order, or a restraining order that was issued or applied for, or others through
         whom that party’s identity may be ascertained.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 793                                 ,0                          3
                                       Y. H. v. J. B.
           whether the court’s other financial orders would remain intact after
           reconsidering the child support order in a manner consistent with
           this opinion.
       2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court abused
           its discretion in finding him in contempt but, to the extent the award
           of attorney’s fees was imposed as a sanction for the defendant’s con-
           tempt, the award constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion,
           which entitled the defendant to a new hearing as to the appropriate
           sanction for his wilful violation of the court’s orders: on the basis of a
           review of the record, the trial court reasonably could have concluded
           that the defendant had not complied with its orders and that his noncom-
           pliance was wilful, and, because the underlying findings were not clearly
           erroneous, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting the
           plaintiff’s motions for contempt; moreover, in awarding the attorney’s
           fees to the plaintiff, the court did not cite any evidence in the record
           that the $40,000 in attorney’s fees related to the three motions for
           contempt, instead making only general statements regarding the defen-
           dant’s behavior and the amount of docket entries and the needlessly
           disorganized trial, and, although the plaintiff requested $40,000 in attor-
           ney’s fees in her proposed orders, that amount was not tied to the
           plaintiff’s request that the court find the defendant in contempt; further-
           more, because the trial court’s financial orders will be reconsidered in
           their entirety on remand, to the extent that the award of attorney’s fees
           was made pursuant to the statute (§ 46b-62) that provides for an award
           of attorney’s fees in a dissolution action, the court may consider whether
           to award attorney’s fees pursuant to § 46b-62 as part of the new finan-
           cial orders.
              Argued December 5, 2023—officially released April 16, 2024

                                    Procedural History

          Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other
       relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis-
       trict of Hartford, where the case was tried to the court,
       Moukawsher, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and
       granting certain other relief, and granting the plaintiff’s
       motions for contempt, from which the defendant
       appealed to this court. Reversed in part; further pro-
       ceedings.
          J. B., self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
                                         Opinion

         BRIGHT, C. J. The self-represented defendant, J. B.,
       appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving
Page 2                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0

         4                         ,0                           0 Conn. App. 793
                                           Y. H. v. J. B.

         his marriage to the plaintiff, Y. H., and entering certain
         financial orders.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that
         the court abused its discretion (1) in declining to award
         him alimony and child support, (2) in its orders regard-
         ing the division of marital property, specifically, the
         marital home and the parties’ business, and (3) in grant-
         ing the plaintiff’s motions for contempt and ordering
         him to pay $40,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.2
            1
              The plaintiff did not file a brief in this appeal. Consequently, on September
         18, 2023, we issued an order stating that ‘‘the appeal will be considered on
         the basis of the [defendant’s] brief and the record, as defined by Practice
         Book § 60-4, only.’’ Although the plaintiff’s counsel appeared at oral argument
         before this court, consistent with our order, he was not permitted to argue.
            2
              The issues as set forth in this opinion are based on this court’s thorough
         review of the defendant’s brief. To the extent that the defendant’s brief
         could be interpreted as raising issues pertaining to (1) orders issued by the
         trial court, Nastri, J., on May 27 and June 1, 2020, regarding pendente lite
         custody orders and (2) orders issued by the trial court, Nguyen-O’Dowd,
         J., on September 7, 2021 and January 12, 2022, regarding the appraisal of
         the marital residence and the parties’ handling of the business during the
         pendency of the dissolution proceedings, we note that such issues are moot
         as they were superseded by the judgment of dissolution. See Netter v. Netter,
         220 Conn. App. 491, 494–95, 298 A.3d 653 (2023) (‘‘Pendente lite orders are
         temporary orders of the court that are necessarily extinguished once a final
         judgment has been rendered. . . . Once a final judgment has been rendered,
         an issue with respect to a pendente lite order is moot because an appellate
         court can provide no practical relief. . . . As a result, an appellate court
         lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a pendente lite order after the trial
         court has rendered a final judgment.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).
            To the extent that the defendant has attempted to raise issues other than
         those set forth in this opinion, we decline to review those claims as they
         are inadequately briefed. The defendant’s brief is confusing, repetitive and
         disorganized. ‘‘We repeatedly have stated that [w]e are not required to
         review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an
         inadequate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is
         required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue
         properly. . . . [When] a claim is asserted in the statement of issues but
         thereafter receives only cursory attention in the brief without substantive
         discussion or citation of authorities, it is deemed to be abandoned. . . .
         For a reviewing court to judiciously and efficiently . . . consider claims of
         error raised on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their
         arguments in their briefs. . . . In addition, briefing is inadequate when it
         is not only short, but confusing, repetitive, and disorganized.’’ (Internal
         quotation marks omitted.) Gleason v. Durden, 211 Conn. App. 416, 439, 272
         A.3d 1129, cert. denied, 343 Conn. 921, 275 A.3d 211 (2022).
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       Page 3

       0 Conn. App. 793                                  ,0                           5
                                        Y. H. v. J. B.

       Because we conclude that the trial court abused its
       discretion in declining to award child support on the
       ground that it was not requested, and without consider-
       ing and applying the child support guidelines, we
       reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to
       all the financial orders and remand this case for a new
       trial on all financial issues. We further conclude that
       the court’s award of attorney’s fees, to the extent it was
       imposed as a sanction for the defendant’s contempt,
       constituted an abuse of its discretion, which entitles
       the defendant to a new hearing as to the appropriate
       sanction for his wilful violation of the court’s orders.
       Finally, to the extent that the award of attorney’s fees
       was made pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-62 (a),
       this case must also be remanded for reconsideration
       in light of the new financial orders that will be issued
       on remand.3
          The following facts, as found by the trial court, Mou-
       kawsher, J.,4 and procedural history are relevant to
       our consideration of the issues raised on appeal. The
       plaintiff and the defendant were married on September
       10, 2010. The parties’ son was born in January, 2008.
       On January 13, 2020, the plaintiff commenced this
       action for dissolution of marriage, alleging that the par-
       ties’ marriage had broken down irretrievably. On June
       2, 2020, the defendant filed an amended answer and
       cross complaint. On September 8, 2022, following a
       trial, the court dissolved the parties’ marriage. In its
       memorandum of decision, the court granted the parties
       joint legal custody of their son with the defendant hav-
       ing primary physical custody. The court stated, in part,
       that ‘‘[n]either party has asked for alimony or child
          3
            Because we reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to its
       financial orders and remand this case for a new trial on all financial issues, we
       need not address the defendant’s claim that the court abused its discretion
       in its orders regarding alimony and the division of property.
          4
            Unless otherwise indicated in this opinion, all references to the trial
       court are to Judge Moukawsher.
Page 4                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   0, 0

         6                       ,0                         0 Conn. App. 793
                                        Y. H. v. J. B.

         support, so the court will order none.’’ In dividing the
         parties’ marital property, the court awarded the parties’
         business, a small religious gift shop that it valued at
         $100,000, to the plaintiff. The court awarded the parties’
         residence to the defendant; it found that the value of
         the residence was $435,000 and that the equity therein
         was $259,000. The court further ordered the residence
         to be sold after the parties’ minor son graduated from
         high school or turned nineteen years old. To prevent the
         defendant from encumbering the residence, the court
         ordered that the residence remain in both parties’
         names and that the defendant bear all expenses related
         to it. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled
         to 100 percent of the business’ value and that the defen-
         dant was entitled to 65 percent of the residence’s value;
         accordingly, it ordered that the defendant pay to the
         plaintiff $90,650 or 35 percent of the proceeds from the
         sale of the residence, whichever was greater.
            The court also granted the plaintiff’s three motions
         for contempt based on its conclusion that the defendant
         wilfully had disobeyed court orders regarding the
         finances of the business. As a result of the contempt,
         the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff
         $40,000 in attorney’s fees. The court, however, also
         stated that it was awarding such attorney’s fees ‘‘under
         . . . § 46b-62.’’ Finally, the court stated that ‘‘[t]he
         remaining pending motions in the case have been con-
         sidered in the court’s orders. They are denied as moot.
         Any remaining financial claims raised by the parties at
         trial have been taken into account in the court’s equita-
         ble deliberations over the property division.’’ This
         appeal followed.5
             The defendant amended this appeal three times to challenge subsequent
             5

         decisions of the trial court. Specifically, the defendant amended the appeal
         to challenge the trial court’s November 22, 2022 denial of his motion to
         disqualify Judge Moukawsher, Judge Nguyen-O’Dowd and Judge Nastri from
         the trial court proceedings. Next, the defendant amended the appeal to
         challenge two orders by the trial court issued on February 15, 2023, denying
         his November 14, 2022 and January 26, 2023 motions to compel discovery
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 5

       0 Conn. App. 793                                 ,0                          7
                                       Y. H. v. J. B.

          We begin by setting forth the well settled standard
       of review in domestic relations cases. ‘‘[T]his court will
       not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has
       abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reason-
       able basis in the facts. . . . As has often been
       explained, the foundation for this standard is that the
       trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess
       the personal factors significant to a domestic relations
       case . . . . In determining whether a trial court has
       abused its broad discretion in domestic relations mat-
       ters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor
       of the correctness of its action. . . . Notwithstanding
       the great deference accorded the trial court in dissolu-
       tion proceedings, a trial court’s ruling . . . may be
       reversed if, in the exercise of its discretion, the trial
       court applies the wrong standard of law. . . . The ques-
       tion of whether, and to what extent, the child support
       guidelines apply, however, is a question of law over
       which this court should exercise plenary review.’’
       (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Renstrup v.
       Renstrup, 217 Conn. App. 252, 259, 287 A.3d 1095, cert.
       denied, 346 Conn. 915, 290 A.3d 374 (2023).
                                             I
          The defendant first claims that the trial court improp-
       erly declined to award child support on the ground that
       it was not requested by either party. Because a review
       of the trial court file reveals that the defendant consis-
       tently had requested child support, we agree with the
       as to certain of the business’ expenses. Finally, the defendant amended this
       appeal to challenge the trial court’s April 5, 2023 memorandum of decision
       addressing several of the parties’ outstanding postjudgment motions. In its
       decision on these motions, the court indicated that the issues raised by the
       parties either had been addressed in the court’s memorandum of decision
       in the dissolution proceeding or were stayed pending the resolution of this
       appeal. After noting that the parties’ filings had wasted time and money,
       the trial court ordered that the parties were required to apply for and receive
       permission before filing any further trial court documents.
          Although the defendant refers to some of these postjudgment orders in
       his brief, he does not raise distinct, fully briefed claims as to these orders.
Page 6                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    0, 0

         8                        ,0                         0 Conn. App. 793
                                        Y. H. v. J. B.

         defendant. We further conclude that, even if not
         requested, the trial court improperly declined to award
         child support without considering the applicable stat-
         utes and child support guidelines.
            The following additional facts are necessary for the
         resolution of this claim. On May 27, 2022, the trial court
         issued a trial management order indicating that trial
         would begin on August 2, 2022. This order required that,
         not later than five days before the trial date, the parties
         were to exchange with each other and file, inter alia,
         fully completed child support guidelines worksheets as
         required by Practice Book § 25-30 (e), if applicable, and
         written proposed orders in accordance with Practice
         Book § 25-30 (c) and (d). On August 1, 2022, both parties
         filed completed child support guidelines worksheets,
         in accordance with the trial management order. On
         his worksheet, the defendant calculated the plaintiff’s
         presumptive current support obligation as $274 per
         week and the total arrearage owed to him as $26,121.
         Also on August 1, 2022, the plaintiff filed a corrected
         notice of compliance with the trial management order
         in which she requested that neither party pay child
         support to the other party6 and the defendant filed his
         notice of compliance, which stated in part: ‘‘For minor
         teenager son support, the defendant is providing the
         child support guidelines worksheet as requested in the
         orders and to be considered for risk mitigations to the
         minor teenager son support.’’
           The trial in this matter commenced on August 2,
         2022.7 On August 3, 2022, the court issued a trial manage-
         ment order indicating that the trial would resume on
         August 18, 2022. On August 12, 2022, the defendant filed
           6
             The plaintiff had filed a previous notice of compliance on July 29, 2022,
         that did not reference child support.
           7
             On August 2, 2022, the defendant filed a revised notice of compliance
         with the trial management order; this filing contained the same language
         as his previous filing regarding child support.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 7

       0 Conn. App. 793                                  ,0                          9
                                        Y. H. v. J. B.

       another notice of compliance with the trial management
       orders with proposed orders ‘‘for the trial scheduled
       for August 18, 2022 . . . .’’ In this filing, the defendant
       provided the same statement regarding child support
       as in his previous filings but, in addition, he specifically
       requested that the court order ‘‘the plaintiff to pay the
       defendant for child support and arrearage.’’ The trial
       resumed on August 18, 2022, with no mention of the
       defendant’s August 12, 2022 filing.
         The court issued its memorandum of decision on
       September 8, 2022, indicating that child support had
       not been requested. On September 16, 2022, the defen-
       dant filed a motion for reconsideration in which he,
       inter alia, pointed out that he had requested child sup-
       port in his August 12, 2022 notice of compliance with
       the trial management orders. The court denied this
       motion on September 20, 2022, and the defendant filed
       this appeal on September 28, 2022. 8 Contrary to the
       court’s statement in its memorandum of decision, the
       record reveals that the defendant consistently
       requested child support before, during, and after the
       dissolution trial.
         More importantly, even if not requested, the court
       improperly declined to award child support without
          8
            On December 14, 2022, the defendant filed a postjudgment motion for
       alimony and child support and, on February 14, 2023, the defendant filed a
       motion for emergency relief, ex parte, postjudgment, in which he requested,
       inter alia, that the court enter an award for child support and alimony. On
       April 5, 2023, the court issued a memorandum of decision on several of
       the parties’ postjudgment motions, including the defendant’s postjudgment
       motion for alimony and child support and the defendant’s motion for emer-
       gency relief, ex parte, postjudgment. In its decision, the court stated: ‘‘[The
       defendant] wants alimony, child support, and discovery. He continues to
       claim that [the plaintiff] is making far more money from her business than
       she admits. After a trial, the court concluded he is wrong about this. The
       court denied him alimony and child support. The trial is over. Discovery
       was over long ago. If [the defendant] persuades an appellate court that this
       court is wrong, he will get a chance to ask for these things. He is not entitled
       to them now.’’ The defendant thereafter amended this appeal to include the
       trial court’s April 5, 2023 decision. See footnote 5 of this opinion.
Page 8                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

         10                  ,0                    0 Conn. App. 793
                                  Y. H. v. J. B.

         first considering the applicable statutes and child sup-
         port guidelines. In considering this issue, we begin with
         a review of the statutory scheme regarding child sup-
         port and the guidelines. General Statutes § 46b-84 pro-
         vides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) Upon or subsequent to the
         . . . dissolution of any marriage . . . the parents of a
         minor child of the marriage, shall maintain the child
         according to their respective abilities, if the child is in
         need of maintenance. Any post judgment procedure
         afforded by chapter 906 shall be available to secure
         the present and future financial interests of a party in
         connection with a final order for the periodic payment
         of child support. . . .
            ‘‘(d) In determining whether a child is in need of
         maintenance and, if in need, the respective abilities of
         the parents to provide such maintenance and the
         amount thereof, the court shall consider the age, health,
         station, occupation, earning capacity, amount and
         sources of income, estate, vocational skills and employ-
         ability of each of the parents, and the age, health, sta-
         tion, occupation, educational status and expectation,
         amount and sources of income, vocational skills,
         employability, estate and needs of the child. . . .’’
            General Statues § 46b-215a provides for a commis-
         sion ‘‘to issue child support and arrearage guidelines
         to ensure the appropriateness of criteria for the estab-
         lishment of child support awards and to review and
         issue updated guidelines every four years.’’ General
         Statutes § 46b-215b provides in relevant part that the
         ‘‘guidelines issued pursuant to section 46b-215a . . .
         and in effect on the date of the support determination
         shall be considered in all determinations of child sup-
         port amounts . . . . In all such determinations, there
         shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of
         such awards which resulted from the application of
         such guidelines is the amount to be ordered. A specific
         finding on the record at a hearing, or in a written
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 9

       0 Conn. App. 793                         ,0              11
                               Y. H. v. J. B.

       judgment, order, or memorandum of decision of the
       court, that the application of the guidelines would be
       inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case, as
       determined under the deviation criteria established by
       the Commission for Child Support Guidelines under
       section 46b-215a, shall be required in order to rebut
       the presumption in such case. . . .’’ (Emphasis added.)
       See also Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 118, 995 A.2d
       1 (2010) (‘‘[t]he . . . guidelines shall be considered in
       all determinations of child support amounts within the
       state’’ (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks
       omitted)).
          Section 46b-215a-5c (a) of the Regulations of Con-
       necticut State Agencies provides in relevant part: ‘‘The
       current support . . . contribution amounts calculated
       under [the child support guidelines] . . . are presumed
       to be the correct amounts to be ordered. The presump-
       tion regarding each such amount may be rebutted by
       a specific finding on the record that such amount would
       be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case.
       . . . Any such finding shall state the amount that would
       have been required under such sections and include a
       factual finding to justify the variance. Only the deviation
       criteria stated in . . . subdivisions (1) to (6), inclusive,
       of subsection (b) of this section . . . shall establish
       sufficient bases for such findings.’’ The deviation crite-
       ria set forth in § 46b-215a-5c (b) of the regulations are:
       ‘‘(1) Other financial resources available to a parent . . .
       (2) [e]xtraordinary expenses for care and maintenance
       of the child . . . (3) [e]xtraordinary parental expenses
       . . . (4) [n]eeds of a parent’s other dependents . . .
       (5) [c]oordination of total family support . . . [and] (6)
       [s]pecial circumstances . . . .’’
         In the present case, the trial court found that the
       parties’ fourteen year old son had been living with the
       defendant. It awarded the parties joint legal custody of
       their son with the defendant to have primary physical
Page 10                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

          12                 ,0                    0 Conn. App. 793
                                  Y. H. v. J. B.

          custody of the child. The court, however, did not discuss
          whether the parties’ son was a ‘‘child . . . in need of
          maintenance’’ pursuant to the criteria set forth in § 46b-
          84 (d), nor did it make a finding on the record, as
          required by § 46b-215b, that the application of the guide-
          lines would be inequitable or inappropriate as deter-
          mined under the deviation criteria established by the
          Commission for Child Support Guidelines. Instead, the
          court simply stated that ‘‘[n]either party has asked for
          . . . child support, so the court will order none.’’ Under
          these circumstances, we are left to speculate both as
          to the presumptive child support amount and as to
          whether application of the guidelines would be inequita-
          ble or inappropriate in this case. Considering the appli-
          cable statutory framework and child support guidelines
          previously set forth, we conclude that the trial court
          abused its discretion in declining to award child support
          based on its conclusion that it had not been requested.
          See Maturo v. Maturo, supra, 296 Conn. 94–95 (‘‘the
          applicable statutes, as well as the guidelines, provide
          that all child support awards must be made in accor-
          dance with the principles established therein to ensure
          that such awards promote equity, uniformity, and con-
          sistency for children at all income levels’’ (emphasis in
          original; internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
          Chowdhury v. Masiat, 161 Conn. App. 314, 322–23, 128
          A.3d 545 (2015) (trial court, without reference to appli-
          cable statutes and child support guidelines, improperly
          declined to award child support for parties’ oldest
          child); O’Brien v. O’Brien, 138 Conn. App. 544, 555, 53
          A.3d 1039 (2012) (trial court abused its discretion in
          entering unallocated award of alimony and child sup-
          port without considering and applying guidelines or
          principles espoused therein), cert. denied, 308 Conn.
          937, 66 A.3d 500 (2013).
             In light of our conclusion that the trial court abused
          its discretion in the manner in which it addressed child
0, 0                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                               Page 11

       0 Conn. App. 793                              ,0                    13
                                    Y. H. v. J. B.

       support, we remand the case for a new trial on all
       financial orders. ‘‘Individual financial orders in a disso-
       lution action are part of the carefully crafted mosaic
       that comprises the entire asset reallocation plan. . . .
       Under the mosaic doctrine, financial orders should not
       be viewed as a collection of single disconnected occur-
       rences, but rather as a seamless collection of interde-
       pendent elements. Consistent with that approach, our
       courts have utilized the mosaic doctrine as a remedial
       device that allows reviewing courts to remand cases
       for reconsideration of all financial orders even though
       the review process might reveal a flaw only in the ali-
       mony, property distribution or child support awards.
       . . .
          ‘‘Every improper order, however, does not necessar-
       ily merit a reconsideration of all of the trial court’s
       financial orders. A financial order is severable when it
       is not in any way interdependent with other orders and
       is not improperly based on a factor that is linked to other
       factors. . . . In other words, an order is severable if
       its impropriety does not place the correctness of the
       other orders in question.’’ (Internal quotation marks
       omitted.) Renstrup v. Renstrup, supra, 217 Conn.
       App. 284.
          In the present case, because it is uncertain whether
       the court’s other financial orders will remain intact
       after reconsidering the child support order in a manner
       consistent with this opinion, we conclude that the
       entirety of the mosaic must be refashioned. See id., 285.
       Accordingly, on remand, the court must consider all
       the financial orders, including the alimony and property
       distribution orders.9
                                         II
          The defendant next claims that the trial court abused
       its discretion in finding him in contempt and ordering
         9
           On remand, the parties shall submit new proposed orders pursuant to
       Practice Book § 25-30.
Page 12                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

          14                 ,0                    0 Conn. App. 793
                                  Y. H. v. J. B.

          him to pay $40,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. As
          to this claim, we conclude that the court’s award of
          attorney’s fees, to the extent it was imposed as a sanc-
          tion for the defendant’s contempt, constituted an abuse
          of its discretion, which entitles the defendant to a new
          hearing as to the appropriate sanction for his wilful
          violation of the court’s orders. To the extent that the
          award of attorney’s fees was made pursuant to § 46b-
          62 (a), this case must also be remanded for reconsidera-
          tion in light of the new financial orders that will be
          issued on remand.
             In its memorandum of decision, the court set forth
          the following findings relevant to its finding of con-
          tempt: ‘‘This has been a pointlessly complex case. Nei-
          ther party has substantial assets or income. Yet they
          have battled for years and repeatedly changed attor-
          neys. As the court can see from the filings on the docket,
          most of the fault for this lies with [the defendant]. He
          has used the lawsuit as a bludgeon. Worse yet, he has
          repeatedly ignored the court’s orders. The record con-
          tains many motions for contempt for him bleeding
          assets away from the business. The evidence shows
          that [the defendant] repeatedly withdrew money from
          the business when he was ordered not to in the plainest
          possible language. The evidence is clear and convincing:
          [the defendant] wilfully disobeyed court orders about
          the business finances as alleged in [the plaintiff’s]
          motions for contempt. These motions are granted.’’
            Our review of this claim is guided by the following
          principles. ‘‘Contempt is a disobedience to the rules
          and orders of a court which has power to punish for
          such an offense. . . . [C]ivil contempt is committed
          when a person violates an order of court which requires
          that person in specific and definite language to do or
          refrain from doing an act or series of acts. . . . In part
          because the contempt remedy is particularly harsh . . .
          such punishment should not rest upon implication or
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 13

       0 Conn. App. 793                        ,0            15
                              Y. H. v. J. B.

       conjecture, [and] the language [of the court order]
       declaring . . . rights should be clear, or imposing bur-
       dens [should be] specific and unequivocal, so that the
       parties may not be misled thereby. . . . To constitute
       contempt, it is not enough that a party has merely vio-
       lated a court order; the violation must be wilful. . . .
       It is the burden of the party seeking an order of con-
       tempt to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both
       a clear and unambiguous directive to the alleged con-
       temnor and the alleged contemnor’s wilful noncompli-
       ance with that directive. . . . The question of whether
       the underlying order is clear and unambiguous is a legal
       inquiry subject to de novo review. . . . If we answer
       that question affirmatively, we then review the trial
       court’s determination that the violation was wilful
       under the abuse of discretion standard.’’ (Internal quo-
       tation marks omitted.) Mitchell v. Bogonos, 218 Conn.
       App. 59, 68–69, 290 A.3d 825 (2023).

          We first consider whether the directives to the defen-
       dant that form the basis for the court’s finding of con-
       tempt were clear and unambiguous. A review of the
       file reveals that on February 19, 2020, the trial court,
       Connors, J., approved an agreement of the parties that
       provided in relevant part: ‘‘Defendant will account for
       all cash taken from the business since the filing of the
       divorce, as well as monies taken in [November and
       December] of 2019. . . . Plaintiff and defendant will
       work together at the marital business. All cash will be
       deposited daily by both parties together at Webster
       Bank.’’ In docket entries ##109.00 and 112.00, the plain-
       tiff alleged that the defendant had failed to account for
       the cash taken from the business since the filing of
       the divorce, as well as monies taken in November and
       December, 2019. In docket entry #112.00, the plaintiff
       also alleged that the defendant had not deposited the
       monies into the Webster Bank account and, instead,
Page 14                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

          16                        ,0                         0 Conn. App. 793
                                          Y. H. v. J. B.

          had deposited the monies with a different financial insti-
          tution.
             On January 12, 2022, the trial court, Nguyen-O’Dowd,
          J., entered an order that provided, in part, that the
          plaintiff was to operate the parties’ business, and the
          defendant was to transfer the Comcast account for the
          business to the plaintiff and provide the plaintiff with
          the username and password to access the business
          banking accounts online.10 In docket entry #262.00, the
          plaintiff alleged that, although the defendant had
          vacated the business, he had changed the password on
          the business computer so the plaintiff could not access
          or use the computer. In its decision, the court found
          that the defendant wilfully had disobeyed court orders
          regarding the finances of the parties’ business as alleged
          in the plaintiff’s motions for contempt, docket entries
          ##109.00, 112.00 and 262.00. On the basis of our review
          of the foregoing, we agree with the trial court that the
          orders forming the basis for the contempt finding were
          clear and unambiguous.
             We next consider whether the trial court’s finding
          that the defendant had not complied with these orders
          was clearly erroneous. ‘‘The clearly erroneous standard
          is the well settled standard for reviewing a trial court’s
          factual findings. A factual finding is clearly erroneous
          when it is not supported by any evidence in the record
          or when there is evidence to support it, but the
          reviewing court is left with the definite and firm convic-
          tion that a mistake has been made.’’ (Internal quotation
          marks omitted.) Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App.
          318, 326–27, 966 A.2d 292, cert. denied, 292 Conn. 902,
          971 A.2d 40 (2009).
            10
               The court determined that it was necessary to give the plaintiff exclusive
          control over the business pending the final dissolution judgment due to
          problems with the defendant’s management of the business during the weeks
          that he ran the business, including his tendency to ‘‘draw’’ more from the
          business than he reported as generated during those weeks.
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 15

       0 Conn. App. 793                         ,0            17
                               Y. H. v. J. B.

          If the court’s determination that the defendant had
       not complied with the court’s orders was not clearly
       erroneous, we next consider whether the defendant’s
       noncompliance was wilful. ‘‘Whether a party’s violation
       was wilful depends on the circumstances of the particu-
       lar case and, ultimately, is a factual question committed
       to the sound discretion of the trial court. . . . Without
       a finding of wilfulness, a trial court cannot find con-
       tempt and, it follows, cannot impose contempt penal-
       ties.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mitchell v.
       Bogonos, supra, 218 Conn. App. 69. ‘‘To the extent that
       [this] claim requires us to examine findings that were
       based on witness testimony, we note that [t]he credibil-
       ity of witnesses, the findings of fact and the drawing
       of inferences are all within the province of the trier of
       fact. . . . We review the findings to determine whether
       they could legally and reasonably be found, thereby
       establishing that the trial court could reasonably have
       concluded as it did.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
       ted.) Netter v. Netter, 220 Conn. App. 491, 501, 298 A.3d
       653 (2023).
          On the basis of our review of the record, the trial
       court reasonably could have concluded that the defen-
       dant had not complied with the court’s orders and that
       his noncompliance was wilful. The plaintiff testified at
       trial that, beginning in July, 2020, she and the defendant
       agreed that they would each operate the business on
       alternating weeks. The defendant, however, did not
       deposit all the money that he received during the weeks
       when he operated the business. On the basis of a sum-
       mary admitted into evidence, the plaintiff testified that
       from June through December, 2021, the defendant
       deposited no cash from the business into either the
       Webster Bank business account or the defendant’s Bank
       of America account to which she had access. The defen-
       dant provided no evidence to contradict this testimony.
       The plaintiff testified that she learned from a customer
Page 16                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

          18                        ,0                         0 Conn. App. 793
                                          Y. H. v. J. B.

          that the defendant was accepting payments on Cash
          App,11 even though the business did not accept Cash
          App as a method of payment.12 The plaintiff also testified
          that the defendant did not provide the log in credentials
          for the business computer to the plaintiff, which
          resulted in her being locked out of the account and
          having to hire someone to assist her in regaining access
          to it. In light of this testimony, we cannot conclude
          that the court’s finding that the defendant was not in
          compliance with the court’s orders was clearly errone-
          ous.13 Because the underlying findings were not clearly
          erroneous, we conclude that the court properly exer-
          cised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motions
          for contempt.

             As to the award of attorney’s fees, the court stated:
          ‘‘The behavior at issue was a running theme through
            11
               ‘‘Cash App is a peer-to-peer money transfer service that allows users
          to deposit and store money on the app.’’ H&R Block, Inc. v. Block, Inc., 58
          F.4th 939, 945 (8th Cir. 2023).
            12
               On September 7, 2021, the trial court, Nguyen-O’Dowd, J., entered an
          order that provided, in part, that ‘‘the parties shall only accept credit/debit
          card payments or checks made out to the business for all purchases. The
          parties shall not accept any payment by cash or through a cash app, Venmo,
          PayPal, Zelle, or the like, until further order of the court.’’ In its order of
          January 12, 2022, the trial court stated that its September 7, 2021, order
          remained in effect.
            13
               We note that, on March 2, 2022, the defendant filed a document, which
          contained numerous exhibits, captioned ‘‘Compliance Marital Business Cash
          Report from November, 2019, through February, 2020.’’ In this document, the
          defendant outlined purported remuneration and payments to the business
          during this period and indicated that, by agreement of the parties, he was
          permitted to deposit cash into a Bank of America account. At trial, the
          plaintiff disagreed that this was the accounting that the defendant was
          required to provide and maintained that the defendant had not accounted
          for all the cash that he took from the business from November, 2019, to
          February, 2020. It was for the court to determine what weight to give this
          competing evidence. Further, this document neither addresses the defen-
          dant’s failure to deposit cash from the business into the Webster Bank
          account, as ordered by the court, nor the defendant’s failure to comply with
          the court’s order that he provide to the plaintiff the log in credentials for
          the business accounts.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 17

       0 Conn. App. 793                                  ,0                        19
                                        Y. H. v. J. B.

       the pretrial period and into the trial. Because of this
       misconduct, the court awards [the plaintiff] attorney’s
       fees under General Statutes § 46b-87. Because the home
       equity is the best source of income to pay fees, the
       court also awards them to [the plaintiff] under . . .
       § 46b-62. Following the 213 docket entries and the need-
       lessly disorganized trial, [the plaintiff] requests $40,000
       in fees in her proposed orders. The court knows she
       has spent more. The court finds this $40,000 number
       under the circumstances reasonable. They will be paid
       from the proceeds of the home sale.’’ A review of the
       court’s decision, therefore, reveals that the court
       awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to §§ 46b-8714 and
       46b-62.15
          Section 46b-87 grants the court the discretion to
       award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a con-
       tempt proceeding. ‘‘The award of attorney’s fees in con-
       tempt proceedings is within the discretion of the court.
       . . . An abuse of discretion in granting the counsel fees
       will be found only if this court determines that the trial
       court could not reasonably have concluded as it did.
       . . . Importantly, where contempt is established, the
       concomitant award of attorney’s fees properly is
       awarded pursuant to § 46b-87 and is restricted to
       efforts related to the contempt action.’’ (Citation omit-
       ted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)
          14
             General Statutes § 46b-87 provides in relevant part: ‘‘When any person
       is found in contempt of an order of the Superior Court entered under section
       46b-60 to 46b-62, inclusive, 46b-81 to 46b-83, inclusive, or 46b-86, the court
       may award to the petitioner a reasonable attorney’s fee and the fees of the
       officer serving the contempt citation, such sums to be paid by the person
       found in contempt . . . .’’
          15
             General Statutes § 46b-62 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘In any proceed-
       ing seeking relief under the provisions of this chapter and sections 17b-743,
       17b-744, 45a-257b, 46b-1, 46b-6, 46b-301 to 46b-425, inclusive, 47-14g, 51-
       348a and 52-362, the court may order either spouse or, if such proceeding
       concerns the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child,
       any parent to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees of the other in accordance
       with their respective financial abilities and the criteria set forth in section
       46b-82. . . .’’
Page 18                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   0, 0

          20                       ,0                        0 Conn. App. 793
                                         Y. H. v. J. B.

          Malpeso v. Malpeso, 165 Conn. App. 151, 184, 138 A.3d
          1069 (2016).
             Additionally, ‘‘[i]n dissolution and other family court
          proceedings, pursuant to § 46b-62 (a), the court may
          order either [spouse] to pay the reasonable attorney’s
          fees of the other in accordance with their respective
          financial abilities and the equitable criteria set forth in
          [General Statutes] § 46b-82, the alimony statute.’’ (Inter-
          nal quotation marks omitted.) Zakko v. Kasir, 209 Conn.
          App. 619, 625, 269 A.3d 220 (2022). That statute provides
          in relevant part that that the court ‘‘shall consider the
          length of the marriage, the causes for the . . . dissolu-
          tion of the marriage . . . the age, health, station, occu-
          pation, amount and sources of income, earning capac-
          ity, vocational skills, education, employability, estate
          and needs of each of the parties and the award, if any,
          which the court may make pursuant to section 46b-81
          . . . .’’ General Statutes § 46b-82 (a). ‘‘[A]n award of
          attorney’s fees in a marital dissolution case is warranted
          only when at least one of two circumstances is present:
          (1) one party does not have ample liquid assets to pay
          for attorney’s fees; or (2) the failure to award attorney’s
          fees will undermine the court’s other financial orders.’’
          (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Zakko v. Kasir,
          supra, 626.
            In the present case, the trial court awarded $40,000
          in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff but did not cite any
          evidence in the record that the $40,000 in attorney’s
          fees related to the three motions for contempt. Instead,
          the court made general statements regarding the defen-
          dant’s behavior and the ‘‘213 docket entries and the
          needlessly disorganized trial . . . .’’16 While it is true
          that the plaintiff requested $40,000 in attorney’s fees in
          her proposed orders, this amount was not tied to the
             16
                We note that the trial court’s memorandum of decision, dated September
          8, 2022, is docket entry #314.10 in the trial court file.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 19

       0 Conn. App. 793                          ,0              21
                                Y. H. v. J. B.

       plaintiff’s request that the court find the defendant in
       contempt. On this record, insofar as the court awarded
       the plaintiff $40,000 in attorney’s fees as a sanction
       related to the defendant’s contempt, it does not appear
       that the award ‘‘is restricted to efforts related to the
       contempt action.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
       Malpeso v. Malpeso, supra, 165 Conn. App. 184. Conse-
       quently, to the extent that the court awarded the $40,000
       in legal fees as a sanction for the defendant’s contemp-
       tuous conduct, it abused its discretion in doing so. The
       defendant is thus entitled to a new hearing as to the
       appropriate sanction for his wilful violation of the
       court’s orders.
          The court further stated, however, that ‘‘[b]ecause
       the home equity is the best source of income to pay
       fees, the court also awards [attorney’s fees] to [the
       plaintiff] under . . . § 46b-62.’’ An award of attorney’s
       fees pursuant to this statute ‘‘is a function of the parties’
       financial circumstances’’ which ‘‘depend directly upon
       the final financial orders issued by the court in its disso-
       lution judgment.’’ O’Brien v. O’Brien, supra, 138 Conn.
       App. 556–57. Accordingly, because the court’s financial
       orders will be reconsidered in their entirety on remand,
       the trial court may consider whether to award attorney’s
       fees pursuant to § 46b-62 as part of the new financial
       orders.
          The judgment is reversed only as to the financial
       orders and the award of attorney’s fees, and the case
       is remanded for a new trial on all financial issues and
       for a new determination of the appropriate contempt
       sanctions; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
         In this opinion the other judges concurred.