Brown v. Brown
130 Conn. App. 522
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Gary Brown and Karen Brown were married on November 28, 1982 and dissolved on November 5, 2009.
- The trial court ordered alimony of $20,000 per month, tax free, and nonmodifiable until $2 million was paid for Karen's real estate ownership interest.
- Prior to dissolution, Gary had assets around $3.1 million (as of May 2009) and the couple lived on $600,000 to $1,000,000 annually in tax-free withdrawals; Gary also provided Karen at least $40,000 per month for personal expenses (Sept 2007–Dec 2008).
- Gary testified to limited income post-September 2008 and contemplated bankruptcy, while the court noted much of his testimony was self-serving but still found him able to maintain an extravagant lifestyle.
- A real estate valuation as of January 23, 2009 was stipulated; evidence about post-January 23, 2009 rents was excluded, and the court ultimately affirmed the alimony award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony of $20,000/mo lacked income support | Brown contends there was no evidentiary basis for alimony given no stated income. | Brown's income evidence, lifestyle, and asset base justify alimony under 46b-82 and related jurisprudence. | Abuse of discretion not shown; alimony upheld. |
| Whether exclusion of post-2009 financial condition evidence affected the decision | Brown argues testimony about post-2009 rents would reveal diminished asset value affecting support. | Parties bound by stipulations limiting valuation to January 23, 2009; post-stipulation testimony was not admissible. | Exclusion harmless; no impact on the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallbeoff v. Wallbeoff, 113 Conn.App. 107 (2009) (trial court's broad discretion in dissolution financial orders)
- Picton v. Picton, 111 Conn.App. 143 (2008) (expansive income concept; lifestyle may impute income)
- Carasso v. Carasso, 80 Conn.App. 299 (2003) (lifestyle and personal expenses may justify imputing income)
- Palazzo v. Palazzo, 9 Conn.App. 486 (1987) (misuse of income or tax strategies in alimony context)
- McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn.App. 146 (2010) (court wide discretion in drafting dissolution orders)
- Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 124 Conn.App. 204 (2010) (weight given to statutory criteria for alimony not every factor equally)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Cantonbury Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Local Land Development, LLC, 273 Conn. 724 (2005) (judicial admissions considered as evidence; binding unless withdrawn)