Carpender v. Sigel, 142 Conn. App. 379

Marriage in 1991, one child; dissolution in 2001; separation agreement requires equal education and extracurricular expenses and permits consent-based cost allocation.
Parties’ separation agreement: each party equally responsible for private secondary education, college, graduate/professional school, and extracurricular activities; the enrolling party pays unless other agrees; neither party unreasonably withholds consent.
Defendant moved for contempt in 2011 for plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay education and other expenses; trial court held plaintiff’s consent to LIU was not unreasonable, found waiver/estoppel regarding college, and found laches/waiver/estoppel barred extracurricular claims.
Trial court found plaintiff did not unreasonably withhold consent for LIU; plaintiff disagreed with LIU choice but not with consent, while defendant had previously offered other schools.
Court found laches/waiver/estoppel did not apply to extracurriculars due to lack of prejudice, delay, or evidence of waiver; reversed on extracurricular claim and remanded for new hearing; affirmed in other respects.
On appeal, court affirmed in part and reversed in part; no further issues reached about estoppel/waiver due to waiver not properly pleaded in reply brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did plaintiff unreasonably withhold consent to LIU college?	Plf believed LIU was appropriate; objected to LIU but consent not unreasonably withheld	Defendant enrolled son in LIU; consent was required but not given	No abuse of discretion; consent not unreasonably withheld; upholds trial court’s college ruling
Whether laches, waiver, and estoppel barred extracurricular reimbursement?	Waivers/estoppels not established by conduct or delay	Delay and conduct should bar reimbursement under laches/waiver/estoppel	La ches and waiver/estoppel improperly applied; Extracurricular reimbursement remanded for new hearing on merits

Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299 (Conn. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard in domestic relations)
Dombrowski v. Noyes-Dombrowski, 273 Conn. 127 (Conn. 2005) (best position to assess dissolution factors; standard of review in domestic-relations)
Fromm v. Fromm, 108 Conn. App. 376 (Conn. App. 2008) (laches analysis and prejudice requirements)
Jungnelius v. Jungnelius, 133 Conn. App. 250 (Conn. App. 2012) (plenary review of conclusions of law; standard of review)
Kalinowski v. Kropelnicki, 92 Conn. App. 344 (Conn. App. 2005) (waiver and estoppel principles; inferred waiver require circumstances)
Fischer v. Zollino, 303 Conn. 661 (Conn. 2012) (estoppel requires proof of misrepresentation and prejudice)