Gaary v. Gillis, 162 Conn.App. 251

Parties divorced in June 2010; the judgment included alimony and child support orders. Plaintiff (Gaary), a radiologist, was terminated from a Michigan employer (Premier) shortly after the dissolution.
Gaary filed a motion in August 2010 to reduce alimony (involuntary termination) and a June 2011 motion to increase defendant’s child support obligation (reduced income). Hearings were held in June and August 2011; the court reduced alimony and adjusted child support, providing for a "second look" after the Michigan litigation concluded.
In January 2012 Gaary’s Michigan attorneys received a $700,000 settlement check (partial settlement). The defendant learned of the settlement in January 2012 and filed postjudgment motions on February 27, 2012 but did not pursue adjudication then.
On November 20, 2013 the defendant moved for an Oneglia hearing (motion to open) alleging fraud: that Gaary concealed the $700,000 settlement and concealed that her termination was caused by her own intentional wrongdoing.
After an Oneglia hearing, the trial court found Gaary had disclosed the Michigan litigation and testified about her termination at the 2011 modification hearings; the court denied the motion to open for fraud. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did plaintiff fraudulently conceal receipt of $700,000 settlement such that prior modification orders should be opened?	Gaary disclosed the Michigan litigation and testified about termination; no concealment of litigation or potential recovery.	Gaary concealed the lump-sum $700,000 settlement at the modification hearings.	Court held no concealment; defendant failed to show probable cause of fraud; motion to open denied.
Did plaintiff conceal that her termination was due to her own intentional wrongdoing?	Gaary testified she was surprised by termination, described employer allegations, and disclosed litigation; no misrepresentation.	Gaary hid that termination was due to her intentional wrongdoing, which would affect the equities.	Court held testimony and exhibits showed disclosure; no fraudulent misrepresentation established.

Oneglia v. Oneglia, 14 Conn. App. 267, 540 A.2d 713 (preliminary hearing standard for opening judgment on fraud; allow limited discovery on probable cause)
Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590, 976 A.2d 69 (standards and limitations for relief from dissolution judgment for fraud)
Bruno v. Bruno, 146 Conn. App. 214, 76 A.3d 725 (Oneglia hearing procedure; moving party must show probable cause to proceed to discovery)
Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428, 93 A.3d 1076 (fraud may include concealment when there is a duty to disclose)