Emerick v. Emerick, 154 A.3d 1069

Background

Denise and Roger Emerick married in 1994; marriage dissolved June 25, 2015 after ~21 years. Both were 65 at dissolution.
Denise had modest pre- and during-marriage earnings, retired in 2013, suffers pain from a 2012 spinal fusion and panic attacks; received Social Security and pendente lite alimony.
Roger worked as an engineer, in good health, earning substantially more; owned the Glastonbury marital home prior to marriage.
Significant house addition (850 sq ft apartment) funded by Denise’s mother ($212,000) increased value of the defendant’s home; Denise’s mother also contributed large sums during defendant’s unemployment and to repay trading debts.
After trial the court found Roger primarily at fault, awarded Denise $100,000 lump-sum alimony (four installments), transferred $397,423 of Roger’s retirement assets to Denise, denied periodic alimony, and largely left other assets with their present owners.
Roger (self-represented) appealed alleging judicial bias, improper financial orders and property division, denial of requests regarding grandchildren and jury trial, and denial of motions for reargument and mistrial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial bias / recusal	Denise: court acted impartially and followed procedure.	Roger: trial judge biased against him as a male and self-represented party; prior perceived bias by other judges.	Rejected. Roger failed to follow recusal procedure; no objective basis shown for disqualification; adverse rulings ≠ bias.
Alimony award (lump sum $100,000)	Denise: award appropriately based on §46b-82 factors (length of marriage, health, incomes, retirement, fault).	Roger: award unfair; court misvalued assets and ignored his spreadsheets alleging $1.3M missing.	Affirmed. Court applied statutory factors, found Denise less able to earn, and permissibly rejected Roger’s spreadsheets as unreliable.
Property division (transfer of retirement assets)	Denise: distribution reflected §46b-81 factors, contribution to marriage, fault, and Denise’s needs.	Roger: court abused discretion, undervalued his contributions and assets.	Affirmed. Distribution reasonable given findings (length of marriage, fault, contribution to appreciation, disparate earning capacity).
Grandchildren contact / information	Denise: she is not custodian; cannot compel grandchildren or provide updates without parental consent.	Roger: requested court order requiring periodic updates or notes from grandchildren.	Rejected. No evidence parents consented or that Denise had custodial authority; Troxel principles limit court-ordered interference in parental decisions.
Jury trial	Denise: dissolution is equitable; no jury right.	Roger: sought jury for factual issues.	Rejected. Dissolution actions are essentially equitable; no right to jury for primary relief.
Reargument and mistrial motions	Denise: trial court properly exercised discretion in denying repetitious motions.	Roger: sought reargument and mistrial based on alleged errors and bias.	Rejected. Court did not abuse discretion; motions merely re-litigated credibility and adverse rulings.

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental right to make childrearing decisions; limits state interference with visitation/third‑party contact)
Tremaine v. Tremaine, 235 Conn. 45 (1995) (lump‑sum alimony is final and nonmodifiable—relevant to accommodating payer’s retirement)
Olson v. Olson, 71 Conn. App. 826 (2002) (Practice Book §1‑23 recusal procedures are mandatory; failure to comply impedes appellate review)
Demartino v. Demartino, 79 Conn. App. 488 (2003) (standards of appellate review in domestic relations—abuse of discretion and clearly erroneous standards)
Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287 (1990) (dissolution of marriage is essentially equitable; no right to jury)
Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283 (2008) (objective standard for judicial recusal—appearance of impartiality governs)