Fredo v. Fredo, 185 Conn. App. 252

Background

Parties divorced in 2004; separation agreement (incorporated into judgment) provided joint custody, $250/week child support, and transfer of a North Granby subdivided lot to defendant in consideration for relinquishing business claims.
Subsequent postjudgment agreements modified child support obligations; a 2010 order deferred defendant’s obligations pending conditions related to the North Granby lot transfer.
In May 2016 defendant moved for (1) an accounting of conveyances affecting the North Granby property and (2) modification of child support, seeking recalculated support to be paid to the child’s maternal aunt (a nonparty). Plaintiff moved to dismiss the modification, to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by defendant, for attorney’s fees, and objected to the accounting motion.
At the August 10, 2016 hearing the court said it lacked authority to order payment of support to a nonparty; defendant’s counsel orally sought leave to amend the prayer for relief but filed a substituted prayer eight days later without court permission; the court treated the original request as seeking payment to the aunt.
On August 31, 2016 the court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), denied the modification, granted the motion to quash the subpoena, marked the accounting as premature, and awarded plaintiff $1,500 in attorney’s fees under the bad-faith exception.
On appeal the court held the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction and reversed the dismissal and vacated the fee award for lack of requisite bad-faith findings; the challenges to denial of modification, the accounting, and the quash were dismissed as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear modification motion	Trial court: dismissal appropriate because relief requested (payment to nonparty) was outside court's authority	Fredo: Superior Court has plenary jurisdiction over family relations and continuing authority to modify support (§§46b-1, 46b-86)	Court: Trial court erred — it had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the modification motion
Whether denial of modification is reviewable on appeal	Plaintiff argued dismissal/denial proper; contested merits	Defendant sought termination/recalculation of her obligation and initially sought payments to aunt but later abandoned that specific relief	Held moot — defendant abandoned the only relief the trial court actually considered (payment to nonparty), so no practical relief available
Whether accounting claim should be adjudicated	Plaintiff contended the accounting was premature/conditions precedent unmet; later provided an informal accounting	Defendant argued accounting was ripe under separation agreement	Held moot — defendant received informal accounting and no longer seeks formal relief
Whether attorney’s fees award under bad-faith exception was proper	Plaintiff sought fees claiming defendant’s motions and subpoena were harassment and entirely without color	Defendant argued court failed to make required specific findings showing claims were entirely without color and acted in bad faith	Court vacated fee award — trial court failed to make the high‑specificity findings required for bad‑faith fee awards (abuse of discretion)

Key Cases Cited

Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (statutory plenary jurisdiction over family relations and continuing jurisdiction to modify support)
Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (bad‑faith exception requires findings that claims were entirely without color and made in bad faith)
Rinfret v. Porter, 173 Conn. App. 498 (appellate review standards for bad‑faith fee awards and need for specific findings)
Sabrina C. v. Fortin, 176 Conn. App. 730 (vacating fee award where trial court failed to make requisite specificity for bad‑faith sanctions)
Light v. Grimes, 156 Conn. App. 53 (same principle; vacatur where findings lacked required specificity)