Posts tagged with "conceal"

Husband Held in Contempt After Attempt to Conceal $250,000 in Marital Assets

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

In a recent dissolution action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut upheld a trial court’s finding of contempt when the defendant refused to return marital assets pursuant to a pendente lite automatic order.

On January 3, 2011, the defendant husband withdrew $250,000 from the parties’ joint home equity line of credit without the plaintiff wife’s knowledge or consent. Later that month, the wife served the husband with her complaint seeking dissolution of the marriage. In March 2011, the wife filed a motion for order pendente lite, in which she asked the court to order the husband to return the monies he withdrew. The husband claimed stated that he withdrew the money to repay a loan to his daughter. The husband’s daughter testified to similar effect. However, the court was not persuaded, and the court granted the wife’s motion with a return date of April 4, 2011. When the husband failed to comply, the court found him in contempt and he was later arrested. He filed an appeal, claiming the court abused its discretion because “the finding of contempt was based on the violation of an order that the court was without authority to issue.”

Courts enjoy “wide discretion and broad equitable power” to effectuate the goal of providing appropriate relief in domestic relations cases. Court orders must be obeyed until either modified or successfully challenged, and willful violation of an order of the court constitutes contempt. In this case, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court had authority to order the husband to pay back the $250,000, and because he failed to comply, a finding of contempt was not an abuse of discretion.

Trial courts are in the best position to assign the weight of credibility to a party’s testimony. Therefore, in this case, when the trial court elected to find the husband’s and his daughter’s claims to be unreliable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Appellate Court found that it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that the husband and his daughter were “engaged in a scheme to conceal and protect marital assets that had been taken by the defendant for no valid reason or purpose.” Furthermore, even though the husband withdrew the money before the pendente lite period began, his attempts to conceal the money continued after the orders were in place. It was immaterial that he did not actually possess the money – he bore the consequences of his conduct. Therefore, a finding that he was in violation of the orders was proper.

Whether advancing or defending a pre- or post-judgment motion regarding awards of alimony, assignment of property, and child support, a divorced individual is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading

Defendant Properly Convicted of Accessory to Criminal Impersonation Where She Asked Friend to Assume Her Identity at Court

In a recent criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut upheld a defendant’s conviction for accessory to criminal impersonation, citing sufficient evidence for all of the essential elements.

This case arose from an incident that occurred on September 4, 2003. The defendant was caught attempting to steal a telephone and its components from Costco in Brookfield, and provided a false name upon her arrest. She was a bail bondsperson at Danbury courthouse and wished to conceal the arrest from her coworkers, so she enlisted the aid of a close friend to meet with defense counsel in her stead. The defendant arranged a meeting and provided the friend the misdemeanor summons as well as $300 to retain the attorney.

At the meeting with defense counsel, the friend identified herself as the defendant using the false name. She stated she was arrested for shoplifting, and provided her upcoming court date. Defense counsel filed an appearance in court and the case was continued, but while meeting with an assistant state’s attorney, defense counsel discovered the true identities of the defendant and her friend. Subsequently, the defendant was arrested for, charged with, and convicted of numerous crimes, including accessory to criminal impersonation. On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that the friend providing defense counsel a false name “was insufficient evidence that she was impersonating a real person.”

Under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-130(a), a person commits criminal impersonation if he or she “impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another.” Accessory to this crime requires that the State show that the defendant, acting under the above requisite intent, “solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided another person… to engage in criminal impersonation.”

In this case, the Appellate Court agreed that there would be insufficient evidence of criminal impersonation if the friend only provided defense counsel with a false name. However, the friend went further than this: she provided information to defense counsel “such that she specifically identified herself as the defendant in this case, at the defendant’s request.” The friend was impersonating the defendant, a real person, and use of a false name was immaterial under the relevant statute.

The defendant additionally argued that she did not have the requisite intent to defraud, but the Appellate Court disagreed. The relevant intent may be to secure a benefit, or to injure or defraud another person – any one of these three aims satisfies the statute. In this case, the defendant would intended to benefit by concealing the arrest from her coworkers, and the possibility of avoiding prosecution altogether. Therefore, with respect to this aspect of the defendant’s appeal, the Court affirmed judgment.

When faced with a charge of larceny, burglary, conspiracy, or accessory, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading