153 Conn.App. 252
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff sought dissolution of marriage; judgment entered in 2006 awarding plaintiff sole ownership of two companies (Crystal, LLC and Original Grasso Construction, Inc.).
- Alimony orders originally set at escalating amounts and then modified by later orders, culminating in a weekly amount of $1500 with termination in 2021, subject to later changes.
- Defendant challenged the plaintiff’s compliance, filing postdissolution motions for contempt, arrearage payments, and to open based on newly discovered evidence.
- Court found plaintiff’s income primarily from Crystal (~$200,000/year) and credited his financial affidavit; argued no wilful nonpayment since he could not meet the $234,000/year alimony due.
- Bankruptcy plan indicated potential for plaintiff to draw $250,000–$275,000/year from Original Grasso if funds were available, but plaintiff testified he had not taken income from Original Grasso since Oct. 2010.
- Trial court explained its rulings in articulation, emphasizing plaintiff’s debt burden and inability to pay more than $1500/week at that time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt was properly denied | Grasso income from Crystal; no wilful nonpayment. | Evidence suggested additional Original Grasso income; credibility issue. | No error; court could credit plaintiff's testimony and found no wilful noncompliance. |
| Whether an arrearage payment order should be entered | Plaintiff unable to pay more than $1500/week; arrearage not payable now. | Arrearage amount previously found; court should order payments. | Court did not err in not entering a current arrearage payment order. |
| Whether the motion to open based on newly discovered evidence was properly denied | — | New bankruptcy evidence shows misrepresentation; should grant new proceeding. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence largely cumulative and insufficient to reopen. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quaranta v. Cooley, 130 Conn. App. 835 (2011) (credibility determinations rest with the trial court)
- Rutka v. Meriden, 145 Conn. App. 202 (2013) (appellate review of witness credibility)
- Heritage Square, LLC v. Eoanou, 61 Conn. App. 329 (2001) (defers to trial court’s credibility findings)
- Guaragno v. Guaragno, 141 Conn. App. 337 (2013) (abuse of discretion standard in domestic matters)
- Miller v. Guimarães, 78 Conn. App. 760 (2003) (fact-finding review; clearly erroneous standard)
- Daniels v. State, 88 Conn. App. 572 (2005) (new proceeding framework for newly discovered evidence)
- Richards v. Richards, 78 Conn. App. 734 (2003) (fraud-based opening of judgments; four-month limit; proper standard)