DiGiuseppe v. DiGiuseppe
AC38679
| Conn. App. Ct. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Parties divorced and incorporated a separation agreement providing CHET accounts for each child; agreement stated if CHET funds were insufficient the defendant (Vincent DiGiuseppe) "shall be solely responsible for the additional college education expenses."
- Mediator gave the parties a court form titled "Education Support Orders [Gen. Stat. §46b-56c]" and checked a box asking the court to enter an educational support order; the dissolution court did not enter a §46b-56c order and instead incorporated the parties’ agreement into the judgment.
- Plaintiff moved for contempt after defendant refused to pay tuition/room/board for their two children attending Bentley and Syracuse.
- Trial court found paragraph 8 of the agreement clear and unambiguous, declined to hold defendant in contempt based on his explanations, but ordered him to pay what he owed for college expenses.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) a latent ambiguity existed when the agreement is read with the court form (making the agreement unenforceable), and (2) the agreement is indefinite because it imposes unlimited college expense liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a latent ambiguity exists between the separation agreement and the signed education support form, rendering the agreement unenforceable | DiGiuseppe should be bound by the clear separation agreement; no latent ambiguity was asserted at trial | Agreement is ambiguous when read with the §46b-56c form and mediator’s statements, so limits of §46b-56c should apply | Not reviewed — claim unpreserved: defendant never distinctly raised latent-ambiguity theory at the contempt hearing |
| Whether §46b-56c (statutory educational support limits) governed the obligation | Agreement controls; court properly incorporated it into judgment | §46b-56c governs absent explicit waiver, limiting defendant’s liability (e.g., in-state UConn rates) | Not reviewed on the merits — defendant raised this theory at trial but did not preserve argument about contract indefiniteness |
| Whether paragraph 8 is void for indefiniteness because it imposes unlimited college expense liability | Agreement is definite as written and was incorporated; trial court properly enforced tuition/room/board obligations | Paragraph 8 is too indefinite to enforce as written without defined limits on covered expenses | Not reviewed — defendant did not argue indefiniteness or seek clarification at trial or via proper articulation |
| Whether appellate court should remand or require articulation of the exact expenses defendant must pay | Plaintiff sought enforcement of tuition, room, and board; judgment ordered defendant to pay owed amounts | Defendant requested articulation; sought a precise list of future liabilities ("what if" scenarios) | Denied — motion for articulation refused; trial record did not present those future hypothetical issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 252 Conn. 153 (2000) (issues not distinctly raised at trial generally will not be considered on appeal)
- State v. Agron, 323 Conn. 629 (2016) (party cannot present one theory at trial and a different one on appeal)
- State v. Colon, 82 Conn. App. 658 (2004) (distinct-raising requirement explained)
- Bender v. Bender, 292 Conn. 696 (2009) (contract must be sufficiently definite to be enforceable)
- Hirtle v. Hirtle, 217 Conn. 394 (1991) (parties may contract for postmajority support)
- State v. Walker, 319 Conn. 668 (2015) (nature and limits of motions for articulation)
- State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (2006) (articulation cannot import matters not presented to the trial court)
- State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367 (2008) (courts decide existing controversies; will not issue advisory opinions)