Ferri v. Powell-Ferri
116 A.3d 297
Conn.2015Background
- Powell-Ferri filed a dissolution action against Ferri; the action remains pending.
- Plaintiffs created the 2011 trust, transferring assets from the 1983 trust, with Ferri as beneficiary.
- Ferri did not participate in creating the 2011 trust or decanting assets; he took no action to recover assets.
- Powell-Ferri asserted claims including breach of fiduciary duty and a cross-complaint seeking declaratory relief and other remedies.
- Trial court granted Ferri’s summary judgment, ruling the cross-complaint failed to plead a legally sufficient action and that no duty to recover third-party assets existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty to preserve marital assets during dissolution exists as a new cause of action | Powell-Ferri argues for a new preservation duty against a dissolving spouse. | Ferri contends no such new cause of action should be recognized. | No new preservation duty recognized |
| Whether summary judgment was proper to test the cross-complaint's legal sufficiency | Powell-Ferri contends summary judgment is inappropriate for testing pleading sufficiency. | Ferri contends summary judgment is proper where the complaint is legally insufficient. | Proper to grant summary judgment on sufficiency |
| Whether existing remedies suffice to address fraudulent asset removal in dissolution | Powell-Ferri asserts public policy favors creating a new action to recover third-party assets. | Ferri argues existing remedies and broad equitable powers suffice; no new action required. | Remedies and equitable powers suffice; no new action |
| Whether statutory and practice rules support consideration of asset dissipation in dissolution | Powell-Ferri relies on dissipation concepts to bolster her cross-claims. | Ferri emphasizes statutes and rules preserve status quo and provide remedies. | Public policy supports status quo; no duty to recover third-party assets |
Key Cases Cited
- Gershman v. Gershman, 286 Conn. 341 (2008) (dissipation context; requires improper conduct or nonmarital use for dissipation)
- Finan v. Finan, 287 Conn. 491 (2008) (preservation vs dissipation; court may consider dissipation in property awards)
- ATC Partnership v. Coats North America Consolidated, Inc., 284 Conn. 537 (2007) (new causes of action; sanctions when considering existence of new action)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (2015) (broad equitable power to fashion relief in dissolution)
- Passamano v. Passamano, 228 Conn. 85 (1993) (court's broad equitable power in dissolution proceedings)
- Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356 (1998) (trial courts have wide discretion in dissolution matters)
- Tobey v. Tobey, 165 Conn. 742 (1974) (factors in dissolution awards and property division)
- Pappas v. Pappas, 164 Conn. 242 (1973) (fraudulent transfers in dissolution context)
- Molitor v. Molitor, 184 Conn. 530 (1981) (dissipation in anticipation of divorce; improper conduct required)
- Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471 (1980) (recognizing tort of wrongful discharge; illustrative of new remedies)