Gordon v. Gordon
148 Conn. App. 59
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Carol S. Gordon filed for dissolution of marriage; both parties were represented by counsel and negotiated a separation agreement that the court incorporated into the dissolution judgment after an on-the-record canvass on April 18, 2011.
- At the canvass both parties confirmed they were satisfied with counsel and signed the agreement "freely and voluntarily." The judgment found the agreement fair and equitable.
- The defendant first moved to open the judgment within months, claiming duress/coercion by plaintiff’s counsel; that first motion was denied on September 22, 2011 and the defendant did not appeal that denial.
- The defendant filed a second motion to open (outside the four‑month statutory period), asserting the plaintiff committed fraud by omitting assets from her financial affidavit (notably a residence) and seeking to reopen the decree.
- At the hearing on the second motion the court declined to reopen the judgment, stating the defendant was intelligent, represented, and knew what he was doing; the court filed no written memorandum of decision or signed transcript of an oral decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment could be opened after statutory four‑month period | Judgment should remain because defendant had agreed to and was canvassed on the separation agreement; no fraud shown | Judgment should be opened due to plaintiff's alleged fraud in omitting assets from financial affidavit (and earlier, coercion) | Denied: appellant preserved only fraud claim; record inadequate to review fraud; court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougherty v. Dougherty, 109 Conn. App. 33 (2008) (motion to open governed by § 52‑212a and Practice Book rules)
- Richards v. Richards, 78 Conn. App. 734 (2003) (judgment may be opened after four months for fraud, lack of actual consent, or mutual mistake)
- Kenworthy v. Kenworthy, 180 Conn. 129 (1979) (attack on fairness of division not allowed by collateral motion outside statutory period absent fraud or lack of consent)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671 (2005) (standard of appellate review for denial of motion to open: abuse of discretion)
- Jenks v. Jenks, 232 Conn. 750 (1995) (findings on fraud/duress are factual and reviewed for clear error)