Digiuseppe v. Digiuseppe, 174 Conn. App. 855

Elizabeth (plaintiff) and Vincent DiGiuseppe (defendant) divorced in 2013; their separation agreement (incorporated into the judgment) set out post‑majority college expense provisions for two children and established CHET accounts for each child.
Paragraph 8: CHET accounts to be used for both children; if CHET funds are insufficient, the defendant "shall be solely responsible for the additional college education expenses." Paragraph 8.2 allows equal division of any remaining CHET balance unless defendant later contributed funds then refundable to him.
During mediation the mediator provided the parties with a court form regarding Educational Support Orders under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b‑56c; the parties signed the form, checked the box asking the court to enter an educational support order, but the dissolution court did not enter such an order or sign/include the form in the judgment.
Plaintiff moved for contempt after defendant refused to pay college costs (son at Bentley; daughter matriculating at Syracuse). Trial court found paragraph 8 clear and unambiguous, declined to hold defendant in contempt but ordered him to pay amounts owed for college expenses within 10 days.
Defendant appealed claiming (1) a latent ambiguity existed between the agreement and the signed court form that would render the agreement unenforceable, and (2) paragraph 8 is unenforceable for lack of definite, reasonable limits on his liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a latent ambiguity exists in the separation agreement when read with the signed educational support form, rendering the agreement unenforceable	Plaintiff: issue not raised below; agreement is clear and was incorporated into judgment; no educational support order was entered	Defendant: form + mediator statements created a latent ambiguity and/or limited his obligation under § 46b‑56c	Not reviewed on appeal — claim not preserved at trial; appellate court declines to consider it
Whether paragraph 8 is unenforceable because it lacks reasonable limits on defendant's liability for college expenses (indefiniteness)	Plaintiff: issue not presented below; contempt motion focused on unpaid tuition/room/board and agreement is clear	Defendant: absent § 46b‑56c limits, contract is too indefinite to enforce for unlimited college expenses	Not reviewed on appeal — claim not preserved at trial; appellate court declines to consider it

Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 252 Conn. 153 (trial‑level claims must be distinctly raised to preserve appellate review)
State v. Agron, 323 Conn. 629 (a party may not present one theory below and a different one on appeal)
Bender v. Bender, 292 Conn. 696 (contract enforceability requires reasonable definiteness)
Hirtle v. Hirtle, 217 Conn. 394 (parties may contract for post‑majority support in a separation agreement)
State v. Walker, 319 Conn. 668 (articulation explains matters decided by trial court)
State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367 (courts must decide actual controversies; no advisory opinions)
State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (limitations on what an articulation may supply to the record)