186 Conn. App. 525
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Beatrice and Mennato Forgione divorced in 2009; their dissolution judgment incorporated a stipulation: Beatrice would have the marital home and pay Mennato a $60,000 “advance” against his equitable distribution. Beatrice testified she borrowed the $60,000 from a friend and listed a $60,000 liability on her financial affidavit.
- In 2012 Beatrice moved to open the judgment, alleging Mennato failed to disclose commissions; on May 30, 2012 the parties signed a postjudgment stipulation to open the judgment for redetermination of all financial issues and the court approved it.
- After a three-day trial, the court (Nov. 6, 2013) issued new financial orders: it recognized the $60,000 advance and ordered Mennato to transfer title of the marital residence to Beatrice; it also directed equal division of the parties’ remaining financial assets.
- The court later fixed the operative equalization date as the date of dissolution (Aug. 26, 2009) and, using the parties’ financial affidavit line items for bank accounts and deferred compensation, calculated an equalization payment from Mennato to Beatrice of $44,777, excluding the $60,000 advance, the $120,000 equity Beatrice retained in the home, and Beatrice’s $60,000 loan liability.
- Mennato appealed, arguing the court erred by not accounting for the $60,000 advance (and its impact on his and Beatrice’s net positions) when dividing the remaining financial assets. The appellate court previously vacated for lack of jurisdiction but, after the Supreme Court’s remand in light of Reinke v. Sing, reconsidered the merits and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to open dissolution judgment post-judgment by stipulation | Beatrice: parties’ stipulation submitted them to court’s jurisdiction to reopen and redecide financial matters | Mennato: argued court lacked jurisdiction under § 46b-86(a) to redivide marital assets | Court: Jurisdiction proper; parties’ postjudgment stipulation authorized reopening (in line with Reinke) |
| Whether the court erred in dividing remaining financial assets by not accounting for the $60,000 advance and related transfers | Beatrice: court properly considered the advance (ordered title transfer) and the plaintiff’s $60,000 loan liability shows no unencumbered benefit | Mennato: the advance produced a net benefit to Beatrice that should have been offset in equalization calculations | Court: Claim unpreserved but reviewed; meritless—record shows advance was a loan to Beatrice and the court accounted for it via the title transfer; defendant’s calculations improperly treat the advance as unencumbered cash |
| Whether appellate court should decline review because claim was raised first on appeal | Beatrice: defendant failed to distinctly preserve the claim so review should be declined | Mennato: pressed the calculation issue on appeal | Court: Although unpreserved, court exercised discretion under Blumberg to review; minimal review requirements met but defendant cannot prevail |
| Whether defendant’s alternative factual contentions (spent advance or retained funds) are supported by record | Beatrice: record (affidavit, testimony) shows advance came from plaintiff loan; defendant provided no contrary evidence in trial court | Mennato: asserted he spent the $60,000 or retained it in his accounts | Court: Defendant’s factual assertions are unsupported; record contradicts his claimed net gain |
Key Cases Cited
- Reinke v. Sing, 328 Conn. 376 (2018) (parties may submit by stipulation to reopen a dissolution judgment; § 46b-86[a] does not bar reopening when parties consent)
- Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade, 286 Conn. 177 (2008) (appellate courts normally decline review of claims not distinctly raised at trial; challenge to valuation method waived if not timely objected to)
- Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (2014) (framework for exercising appellate discretion to review unpreserved claims when minimal requirements met)