Blondeau v. Baltierra
337 Conn. 127
| Conn. | 2021Background
- Blondeau and Baltierrra, married in France, executed a premarital agreement selecting French law for their "matrimonial regime" and adopting a separation of property regime; the agreement presumes property acquired in both names is joint unless proven otherwise.
- The parties bought a Westport, CT home titled in both names; Blondeau provided most of the down payment (funds from her father) while Baltierrra paid mortgage, taxes, and insurance; equity was $531,000 at dissolution.
- They agreed to arbitrate the dissolution; the arbitration agreement said Connecticut law would govern substantive issues but directed the arbitrator to be guided by the French Civil Code when deciding claims about effectuation or scope of the premarital agreement.
- The arbitrator found the home was joint property, applied Connecticut law to divide equity, awarded the home to Blondeau and ordered her to pay Baltierrra $212,000, and issued orders allocating child‑related expenses and insurance.
- The trial court vacated the award (denied confirmation), concluding the arbitrator exceeded authority and manifestly disregarded the parties’ choice of law by applying Connecticut law to divide equity, and that the award improperly included child support matters; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blondeau) | Defendant's Argument (Baltierrra) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over order vacating arbitration award that included child‑support issues | §46b‑66(c) removes chapter 909 remedies when an award includes child‑support issues, so no final judgment/appealable order exists | Chapter 909 (incl. §52‑423) applies; §46b‑66(c) limits what may be validly arbitrated but does not bar judicial enforcement/remedies | CT Supreme Court: appealable under §52‑423; §46b‑66(c) limits enforceable scope of arbitration but does not strip jurisdiction to review or hear appeals |
| Timeliness / specificity of motion to vacate under §52‑420(b) | Motion to vacate insufficiently specific (did not state factual grounds within 30 days) so court lacked jurisdiction | Motion was filed within 30 days; §52‑420(b) requires timely filing but not factual particularity | Motion timely; statute requires filing within 30 days but does not mandate factual particularity in initial motion |
| Standing/aggrievement and mootness for child‑support portion | Plaintiff not aggrieved by child‑support orders and pendente lite stipulations rendered that portion moot | Any party to arbitration may move to vacate under §52‑418(a); pendente lite stipulations do not moot final child‑support determination | Any party may move to vacate; no aggrievement requirement in §52‑418(a); child support portion not moot because pendente lite orders are temporary and trial court must make final determination using guidelines |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded submission or manifestly disregarded law by applying Connecticut law to divide home equity; and whether child‑support orders were seizable/severable | Arbitrator ignored clear contractual choice of French law for matrimonial regime and therefore exceeded authority / manifestly disregarded law; award also improperly included child‑support issues not subject to arbitration | Arbitration submission authorized resolution of property and premarital‑agreement issues; language was ambiguous about whether French law governed division of joint property; arbitrator’s interpretation was within scope and not manifest disregard; child‑support orders violate §46b‑66/§52‑408 but are severable | Court: arbitrator did not exceed authority and did not manifestly disregard law given ambiguities in premarital and arbitration agreements; but inclusion of child‑support‑related orders violated statutory prohibition and those child‑related provisions are severable from the rest of the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Daginella v. Foremost Ins. Co., 197 Conn. 26 (Conn. 1985) (final judgment in arbitration proceedings is ordinarily an order confirming, vacating, or modifying the award)
- LaFrance v. Lodmell, 322 Conn. 828 (Conn. 2016) (§46b‑66(c) and §52‑408 read harmoniously; statutes limit enforceable scope of marital arbitration)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (Conn. 2005) (court’s review of unrestricted arbitration submission limited to whether arbitrator exceeded submission or manifestly disregarded law)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1992) (manifest disregard of law is narrow ground reserved for extraordinary failures to follow clear legal principles)
- Norwalk Police Union v. Norwalk, 324 Conn. 618 (Conn. 2017) (elements for vacatur on manifest‑disregard ground require obvious, deliberate ignoring of clearly governing law)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (as long as arbitrator is arguably construing or applying contract, courts defer despite serious error)
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (U.S. 2013) (job of a court is to assess whether arbitrator construed the contract, not whether that construction was correct)