Chang v. Chang
155 A.3d 1272
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Parties married in 2003, executed a premarital agreement ~10 days before marriage; marriage later dissolved after 11 years with two minor children.
- Defendant is a high‑earning trader; plaintiff is a psychologist who stopped working after second child’s special needs; trial court considered equitable division and alimony after a seven‑day trial.
- Defendant argued the premarital agreement made his solely‑held assets his separate property and precluded alimony; plaintiff argued the agreement was unenforceable and sought alimony and an equitable division.
- Trial court found the premarital agreement unenforceable based on inadequate disclosure (defendant did not value family entities on his financial affidavit) but noted in a footnote that the agreement, as written, would not have prevented the court from awarding alimony or dividing certain solely‑held accounts.
- Court awarded plaintiff eight years of alimony, a lump‑sum property settlement, and significant interests in bank accounts and investment holdings; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the premarital agreement was unenforceable for inadequate financial disclosure | Agreement unenforceable because defendant failed to disclose values of family entities | Agreement enforceable; disclosure was adequate or speculative valuations were not required | Court concluded the orders would be the same even if agreement were enforceable, so it did not resolve the disclosure issue on appeal (affirmed judgment) |
| Whether the premarital agreement precluded an award of alimony | Agreement does not expressly waive alimony; no clear and knowing waiver | Agreement’s language (including estoppel/enjoinment clauses) bars seeking relief not in agreement and thus bars alimony | Court held agreement did not bar alimony—no clear, unequivocal waiver of alimony was present |
| Whether the agreement precluded division of assets held solely in defendant’s name that were acquired during marriage | Solely held, post‑marriage accounts are not listed as separate property and can be divided | Solely held accounts are separate property under the agreement and thus not divisible | Court held the agreement did not define those post‑marriage, solely‑held income accounts as separate property where not listed on Schedule A, so they were divisible |
| Whether the trial court could award the same relief if the premarital agreement were valid | Court may award statutory equitable relief absent an express waiver | If agreement valid, its terms would bar such relief | Court found that even if agreement were valid, its terms would not have prevented the awards made, so appellate review need not decide enforceability |
Key Cases Cited
- Beyor v. Beyor, 158 Conn. App. 752 (parties free to contract; challenge to premarital agreement bears heavy burden)
- Lisko v. Lisko, 158 Conn. App. 734 (contract interpretation principles; plain vs. ambiguous language)
- Perricone v. Perricone, 292 Conn. 187 (waiver requires knowledge and intentional relinquishment of known right)
- Passamano v. Passamano, 228 Conn. 85 (if alimony not awarded in final decree it cannot be awarded later based on changed circumstances)