Bento v. Bento, 125 Conn. App. 229

The plaintiff sought dissolution of his forty-year marriage to the defendant and requested alimony, equitable distribution, and related relief; the action was tried in October 2008.
The court found the plaintiff health-impaired and largely not employed since 2000, with multiple heart attacks, and faulted the plaintiff for the marriage breakdown, while the defendant alleged fault by the plaintiff and described a more recent breakdown in 2005.
The court dissolved the marriage, awarded the defendant alimony, divided the marital home, allocated assets, and assigned liabilities, including a disputed 1.5 million dollar sale proceeds from B & S Realty.
The court ordered the sale of the marital home, equal division of net sale proceeds, and a 40/60 split of proceeds from the sale of B & S Realty after tax considerations, with specific asset allocations to each party and fault-based alimony.
The court also awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and ordered the parties to share certain tax liabilities; the plaintiff challenged several financial orders on appeal.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues (i) attorney’s fees award to defendant, (ii) equal sharing of a corporate debt, and (iii–iv) non–50/50 asset division and a claimed agreement to divide personal property; the appellate court partially reverses and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Attorney's fees on appeal	Bento contends the fee award lacks basis under 46b-62 and is unclear.	Bentos asserts the fees were warranted and properly grounded in conduct and discovery behavior.	Ambiguous basis; record insufficient for review; fee order cannot be sustained on given record.
Equally responsible for debt to Manuel Pedro and/or Maria Pedro	Court erred by imposing equal liability without a finding of the debt.	Court may assign debts but must have a factual basis; here record lacked findings	Remanded to vacate the 50/50 debt allocation due to lack of evidentiary findings.
Alimony and asset division under 46b-82	Alimony and division of assets were not properly tailored to income and fault; requested 50/50 asset split and income equalization.	Court properly considered statutory factors and fault; awarded alimony and assets accordingly.	Court did not abuse discretion; supported by factors; no reversal of alimony or asset division.
Division of personal property and alleged stipulation	Court erred by finding a stipulated division of personalty without proper record.	Record supported a stated agreement on personal property division.	Finding that the parties stipulated to division of personal property is clearly erroneous; remand for proceedings on personalty.

Desai v. Desai, 119 Conn.App. 224, 987 A.2d 362 (2010) (trial court has broad discretion; review limited to abuse of discretion or lack of factual basis)
Watson v. Watson, 20 Conn.App. 551, 568 A.2d 1044 (1990) (broad discretion in alimony and property division; no requirement for exact findings on every factor)
Fewtrell v. Fewtrell, 87 Conn.App. 526, 865 A.2d 1240 (2005) (trial court may assign debts and liabilities; need basis in record)
Osakowicz v. Osakowicz, 57 Conn.App. 807, 750 A.2d 1135 (2000) (authority to order one party to assume joint liabilities)
Markarian v. Markarian, 2 Conn. App. 14, 475 A.2d 337 (1984) (record must reflect reasoning in discretionary decisions)
Ahmadi v. Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384, 985 A.2d 319 (2009) (clear error standard; evidence-based)
Gil v. Gil, 110 Conn. App. 798, 956 A.2d 593 (2008) (litigation misconduct can influence fee awards under § 46b-62)
Jewett v. Jewett, 265 Conn. 669, 830 A.2d 193 (2003) (implicit acknowledgment of conduct affecting fee awards)
Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 915 A.2d 790 (2007) (court may consider litigation misconduct for attorney’s fees)