Dougan v. Dougan, 21 A.3d 791

Dougan and Hamada-Dougan married in 1988 and had two children, with substantial assets amassed during the marriage.
In 2005 they entered a stipulation for judgment dissolving the marriage, distributing nearly $80 million in assets and requiring Dougan to pay $15,325,000 to Hamada-Dougan in two installments, with 10% interest on any late payment and defendant's collection costs.
The stipulation provided $7,825,000 due within 30 days and $7,500,000 due on or before June 16, 2006; failure to pay triggered interest from the date of the stipulation.
The dissolution decree incorporated the stipulation; Dougan paid the $7.5 million and later paid interest totaling $24,999.96; Hamada-Dougan moved to enforce the interest provision.
The trial court held the interest provision unenforceable as a penalty against public policy; the Appellate Court reversed, and the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court on certified questions.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that Dougan is barred from challenging the provision due to judicial estoppel, affirming the Appellate Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the interest provision is enforceable despite public policy.	Dougan contends the provision functions as a penalty and is unenforceable.	Hamada-Dougan argues the provision is enforceable as part of a fair, negotiated settlement.	Judicial estoppel bars Dougan; the provision is enforceable.
Whether Dougan’s later position violates judicial estoppel given his prior sworn testimony.	Dougan asserts no inconsistency between prior testimony and current position.	Hamada-Dougan argues the positions are clearly inconsistent and the later stance should be barred.	Judicial estoppel applies; Dougan is barred from challenging the provision.

Gillis v. Gillis, 214 Conn. 336 (1990) (stability of stipulations; contract-like effect of consent judgments)
Afkari-Ahmadi v. Fotovat-Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384 (2009) (contract interpretation of settlements incorporated into judgments)
Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314 (2005) (public policy evaluation of contracts)
Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (interwoven nature of financial orders in dissolution actions)
Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145 (2010) (definition and limits of judicial estoppel)
Simon v. Safelite Glass Corp., 128 F.3d 68 (2d Cir.1997) (purpose of judicial estoppel to protect judicial integrity)