Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingtrialmotionwilldivorcecommon law

plaintiffdefendantpleamotioncompliancecommon law

Related Cases

Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 892 A.2d 318

Facts

Karyn Gil and John A. Gil divorced in 2000, with a separation agreement that included joint legal custody of their minor child and specified visitation rights for John. Over the years, John claimed that Karyn had repeatedly denied him visitation and shortened his visitation hours. In 2003, John filed a motion for contempt, leading to hearings where Karyn contested the findings against her, arguing that the court's orders were ambiguous and that she had not been given a fair opportunity to defend herself.

On May 18, 1999, the plaintiff filed a complaint, seeking dissolution of her marriage to the defendant. On April 10, 2000, the court rendered judgment dissolving the marriage and incorporated by reference a separation agreement between the parties, which the court found was fair and equitable.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding Karyn Gil in contempt for denying John A. Gil his court-ordered visitation rights?

The plaintiff claims that the court improperly found her in contempt for acts that were not pleaded in the defendant's motion for contempt and for time periods not included in the motion for contempt.

Rule

The court's authority to impose civil contempt arises from common law, and a finding of contempt requires that the conduct be willful and that the party had clear notice of the contemptuous conduct.

The court's authority to impose civil contempt penalties arises not from statutory provisions but from the common law…. The penalties which may be imposed, therefore, arise from the inherent power of the court to coerce compliance with its orders.

Analysis

The court found that Karyn was on notice regarding the contempt allegations as they stemmed from a continuous course of conduct that began before the motion was filed. The court also determined that Karyn had ample opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses during the hearings. Furthermore, the court ruled that the medical records were relevant and admissible, as they provided insight into the child's anxiety related to visitation.

The plaintiff cannot complain now that she was not on notice that the court would find her in contempt for the allegedly contemptuous conduct that continued even after the motion was filed.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Karyn Gil was in contempt for her actions regarding visitation and that the trial court had acted within its discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

John A. Gil prevailed in the case because the court found that Karyn had willfully denied him visitation rights, violating the court's orders.

The court stated: '[The plaintiff] is in contempt. She has been in contempt since before September 11, 2003, and she has been in contempt since at least October 31, 2003. She is in continuous, constant and unmitigated contempt of the order.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218, 57 USLW 2363

Flynn v. Edmonds, 236 Ill.App.3d 770, 602 N.E.2d 880, 176 Ill.Dec. 934

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305, 54 USLW 4789

Lopez v. Clifford Law Offices, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 969, 841 N.E.2d 465, 299 Ill.Dec. 53

Whiteside v. State, 853 N.E.2d 1021