Coleman v. Coleman, 95 A.3d 569

Married in 1975; two children; defendant was a full-time homemaker.
Separation occurred July 2010; defendant moved to New Mexico; earning capacity $400/week.
Plaintiff employed as IBM consulting programmer; 2012 income about $186,264 salary plus bonus; net weekly income about $2,846.
Plaintiff received approximately $1 million inheritance in 2007; by dissolution the balance was in Morgan Stanley accounts (and related assets).
Defendant received approximately $119,000 from family during marriage, later depleted by family expenditures.
At dissolution, home worth about $300,000 with liens of about $34,763; plaintiff had substantial investment and retirement accounts totaling about $2,359,635.42.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in dividing inheritance	Coleman argues inheritance should be excluded or given weight due to lack of spouse’s contribution.	Coleman contends inheritance is part of estate and should be equitably divided under §46b-81 (c).	No abuse; inheritance subject to distribution; court properly considered §46b-81 (c)

Gervais v. Gervais, 91 Conn. App. 840 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard in domestic relations)
Light v. Grimes, 136 Conn. App. 161 (2012) (broad discretion in distributing marital property; consider all factors)
Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356 (1998) (no requirement to recite every statutory factor; broad latitude in weighing factors)
Rozsa v. Rozsa, 117 Conn. App. 1 (2009) (goal to give each spouse an equitable share at dissolution)
Boyne v. Boyne, 112 Conn. App. 279 (2009) (no need for express findings on every §46b-81 (c) factor)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (2008) (legislative vs. judicial roles; interpret statutes within judicial function)