140 Conn. App. 697
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Susan Bonito filed for divorce in September 2008;婚 was subsequently dissolved with custody and support orders.
- Trial occurred July–August 2010; guardian ad litem Esposito recommended supervised visitation; an incident during an unsupervised visit led to a hearing and a custody ruling.
- September 29, 2010 evidentiary hearing addressed the incident; court found the defendant's conduct harmed the child and terminated his visitation with the child R.
- Final dissolution decision issued January 18, 2011, granting plaintiff sole legal and physical custody and restricting the defendant’s access to the children; trial court also issued various financial orders.
- Defendant challenged (1) jurisdiction under General Statutes § 51-183b for not rendering within 120 days and (2) the financial orders, contending they unfairly favored plaintiff.
- Court held the judgment timely under § 51-183b and affirmed the financial orders as not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment was timely under § 51-183b | Judgment timely since 120 days ran from Sept. 29, 2010 hearing. | Trial ended Aug. 23, 2010; no timely judgment under § 51-183b. | Jurisdiction affirmed; timely judgment within 120 days. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion regarding alleged fraudulent transfers | Court may consider transfers to shield assets; conduct showed attempts to deprive plaintiff. | Court did not articulate standard of proof for fraud and thus misapplied law. | Court did not err; no required articulation of fraud standard found; findings supported. |
| Whether the financial orders were excessive or inequitable | Court properly applied statutory criteria; findings supported by evidence. | Orders favored plaintiff and were unfairly punitive to defendant. | No abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frank v. Streeter, 192 Conn. 601 (1984) (timing of 120-day period for judgment)
- Cowles v. Cowles, 71 Conn. App. 24 (2002) (120-day period begins when court finds necessary materials)
- Jordan v. Jordan, 125 Conn. App. 207 (2010) (same 120-day timing rule)
- O.J. Mann Electric Services, Inc. v. Village at Kensington Place Ltd. Partnership, 99 Conn. App. 367 (2007) (interpretation of timing for final judgments)
- Bramwell v. Dept. of Correction, 82 Conn. App. 483 (2004) (standard of review in factual findings)
- Northeast Savings, F.A. v. Scherban, 47 Conn. App. 225 (1997) (deference to trial court factual determinations)
- Rowe v. Goulet, 89 Conn. App. 836 (2005) (implied consent concept in late judgments)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex ret. Arnold v. Forvil, 302 Conn. 263 (2011) (scope of plenary review on undisputed facts)
- Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 124 Conn. App. 204 (2010) (presumption regarding unmade findings)
- State v. Baker, 50 Conn. App. 268 (1998) (standard of review and deference to trial court)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (broad discretion in financial orders)