Fronsaglia v. Fronsaglia, 202 Conn.App. 769

Parties married in 1992; two children (one minor at trial). Plaintiff Lisa Fronsaglia: registered nurse, gross income found to be $115,000. Defendant Benigno Fronsaglia: self‑employed furniture importer, bachelor’s degree, business interests including Meeting International and a 12.5% interest in emuamericas, LLC.
During pendente lite the defendant sold his 12.5% interest in emuamericas for $550,000, invested tens of thousands in a restaurant, failed to inform the plaintiff or the court, and spent the funds in violation of the automatic orders.
Defendant failed to file tax returns for the two years before dissolution, commingled business and personal finances, and incurred business debts secured by liens on the family home; the trial court found him not credible.
Trial court found defendant’s actual gross earnings for 2018 to be $160,000, reattributed the $550,000 dissipation to him for property division, awarded the family home to the plaintiff (subject to liens), assigned business debts and tax liabilities to the defendant, and awarded the plaintiff $1,500/month alimony for 20 years (nonmodifiable first five years).
Defendant appealed, raising four claims: (1) grossly disproportionate property division and assignment of most marital debt to him; (2) no evidentiary support for $160,000 earnings finding; (3) alimony based on gross rather than net income; (4) alimony intended to punish him for misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Property division and debt allocation	Division proper because court reattributed dissipated $550,000 to defendant and assigned him debts he incurred without plaintiff’s knowledge	Award is grossly disproportionate (plaintiff got ~87% of marital assets) and unfairly saddles defendant with most debt	Affirmed — not disproportionate; court reattributed dissipated marital assets and assigned business debts to defendant
2. Finding of $160,000 income	Sufficient evidence (historical earnings, P&L, bank/credit records, emails, testimony) supported actual earnings finding	No evidence supported a $160,000 earning capacity/actual earnings finding	Affirmed — record supported finding of $160,000 actual earnings; Keusch inapposite
3. Alimony based on gross vs net income	Court considered evidence enabling net‑income determination (affidavits, records, spending) and did not rely solely on gross	Court based alimony solely on gross income without net income evidence	Affirmed — court did not base award solely on gross; ample evidence to infer net income and relevant factors were considered
4. Alimony awarded to punish misconduct	Statute permits considering causes of breakdown (affair, poor business choices) when awarding alimony; purpose is support, not punishment	Alimony was punitive for extramarital affair and misconduct	Affirmed — court permissibly considered causes of dissolution and defendant’s dissipation when fashioning alimony

O’Brien v. O’Brien, 326 Conn. 81 (Conn. 2017) (trial court may consider dissipation of marital assets and reattribute them in property/alimony orders)
Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2005) (reversed award that was grossly disproportionate where financial award exceeded defendant’s income)
Keusch v. Keusch, 184 Conn. App. 822 (Conn. App. 2018) (child‑support context: court cannot base support on earning capacity without following guidelines procedures)
Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2013) (alimony and support must be grounded in available net income, not gross)
Leonova v. Leonov, 201 Conn. App. 285 (Conn. App. 2020) (reference to gross income does not invalidate award where record permits net‑income determination)
Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 115 Conn. App. 570 (Conn. App. 2009) (party who withholds financial information cannot later complain about the court’s calculation)
Gong v. Huang, 129 Conn. App. 141 (Conn. App. 2011) (definition and application of dissipation in marital dissolution)