166 Conn. App. 240
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Mary Ann Britto filed for dissolution of marriage from John J. Britto, Jr.; trial began Sept. 18, 2013; judgment rendered Oct. 8, 2013; memorandum of decision Dec. 20, 2013.
- Defendant owned A-1 Janitorial, LLC and multiple rental properties; a forensic accountant analyzed business records but defendant withheld some 2012 tax returns and other documents.
- Trial court found the defendant had deliberately transferred marital assets during the pendency of the divorce and attempted to hide assets.
- Court imputed net annual income of $230,000 to defendant (used to calculate alimony set at 30% of net income for 16 years); court concluded taxes did not reduce that figure based on defendant’s testimony.
- Court awarded plaintiff 60% of the value of four Bridgeport properties purchased by defendant’s girlfriend/father with marital funds and ordered restitution for $191,641.95 transferred to defendant’s father.
- Parties had stipulated to values for thirteen properties (including the four at issue) but the trial court adopted higher valuations than those stipulated without stating on the record its reasons or giving parties notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in using $230,000 as defendant’s net income for alimony | Net income properly imputed based on accountant’s analysis and defendant’s admissions; taxes not shown | $230,000 is gross, not net; court erred by not deducting tax liability | Affirmed: court reasonably found $230,000 was net (defendant failed to prove tax liability) |
| Whether trial court could disregard parties’ stipulation on property values | Court may adopt higher valuations if supported; plaintiff sought larger award | Court improperly ignored stipulated values without stating reasons or allowing litigation | Reversed in part: court abused discretion by disregarding stipulation; remanded to apply stipulated values |
| Whether plaintiff was awarded same marital asset twice (restitution + share of properties) | Awards addressed different harms: restitution for dissipated cash and share of properties purchased with marital funds | Double recovery claimed because transferred cash funded the properties | Affirmed: court’s distribution not clearly erroneous; defendant failed to trace assets/negate findings of dissipation |
| Whether financial orders were abusive/unenforceable because defendant cannot pay | Plaintiff: orders reflect findings on income, assets, liabilities; enforceable | Defendant: aggregate payments exceed ability to pay | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; defendant did not rebut trial court’s factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Mensah v. Mensah, 145 Conn. App. 644 (Conn. App. 2013) (standard of review in family matters; deference to trial court findings)
- Cleary v. Cleary, 103 Conn. App. 798 (Conn. App. 2007) (support and alimony must be based on net income; context-specific application)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (Conn. 2010) (financial orders as an interwoven mosaic; severability analysis)
- Cupe v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 262 (Conn. App. 2002) (court must state on record reasons when rejecting parties’ stipulation and afford opportunity to litigate)
- Wood v. Wood, 160 Conn. App. 708 (Conn. App. 2015) (deference to trial court on financial awards; review limited to clear error or abuse of discretion)
- Hopfer v. Hopfer, 59 Conn. App. 452 (Conn. App. 2000) (trial court’s factual resolution in domestic matters is binding unless clearly erroneous)
- In re Halle T., 96 Conn. App. 815 (Conn. App. 2006) (appellant’s burden to show trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bertrand, 140 Conn. App. 646 (Conn. App. 2013) (abandonment of claims not briefed on appeal)