Cimino v. Cimino
164 A.3d 787
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Gina Cimino (plaintiff) and Joseph Cimino (defendant) divorced after a 29‑year marriage; trial court awarded alimony and divided retirement assets, awarding the defendant a pension and the plaintiff the defendant’s thrift savings plan and an IRA.
- At dissolution, defendant’s financial affidavit listed pension contributions of about $147,000 and provided a pension benefits statement showing estimated monthly annuities; no pension "booklet" valuation was produced.
- Nearly two years after the dissolution judgment, Gina filed a motion to open/vacate the judgment alleging fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and/or mutual mistake—claiming the pension’s true value exceeded $1 million and that the defendant failed to disclose ~$50,000 in family gifts.
- The trial court held a limited hearing to determine probable cause for opening the judgment for discovery and denied the motion, crediting the defendant’s testimony that he disclosed all pension information he knew and that he had no present interest in the postjudgment family gifts.
- Plaintiff appealed the denial of the motion to open; the appellate court affirmed, holding (1) the pension valuation challenge was an untimely collateral attack and not properly before the court, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no probable cause of fraud regarding the pension or the family gifts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dissolution court committed plain error in valuing the defendant’s pension | Pension was undervalued: court used contributions (~$147,000) rather than true actuarial value (claimed > $1,000,000) | Valuation challenge should have been raised on direct appeal; pension disclosures reflected what defendant knew and provided | Not considered on appeal — untimely collateral attack; claim not before appellate court |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to open based on alleged pension nondisclosure/fraud | Defendant intentionally withheld pension booklet/true valuation; nondisclosure violated duty of full and frank disclosure | Defendant disclosed all information he knew, produced benefits statement, and complied with discovery; no evidence of intent to deceive | No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably found no probable cause to open for discovery |
| Whether trial court abused discretion re failure to disclose ~$50,000 in family gifts | Parents gave money to brother during pendency who later transferred $50,000 to defendant to hide assets from division | Gifts were customary, brother testified funds came from him, defendant had no present interest during proceedings | No abuse of discretion; court credited testimony that gifts were speculative and not fraudulently concealed |
| Standard and scope for opening judgment for postjudgment discovery | (implicit) Plaintiff sought postjudgment discovery to prove fraud/misrepresentation | Discovery only available if motion to open shows probable cause; preliminary hearing not full merits trial | Trial court properly applied probable‑cause standard and denied reopening when plaintiff failed to show probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Oneglia v. Oneglia, 14 Conn. App. 267 (Conn. App. 1988) (limits on postjudgment discovery until judgment opened)
- Gaary v. Gillis, 162 Conn. App. 251 (Conn. App. 2016) (standard for trial court’s review of motion to open on fraud)
- Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428 (Conn. 2014) (elements of fraud and fraud by nondisclosure)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671 (Conn. 2005) (duty of full and frank disclosure in dissolution financial affidavits)
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2008) (limitations on collateral attacks on judgments)
- Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590 (Conn. App. 2009) (procedural principles for motions to open)