150 Conn.App. 289
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Paul Greenan and Suzanne Greenan underwent a marital dissolution; the trial court issued an unsealed memorandum of decision dissolving the marriage and later a corrected decision.
- Paul moved to seal the memorandum (claiming protection of sensitive family/children information); the trial court denied sealing after multiple rulings and an articulation explaining no new grounds were supplied.
- At trial Paul testified about a February 8, 2010 arrest (he also said the record had been erased under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a), but he invoked the Fifth Amendment on cross‑examination when asked about his conduct that night. The court drew an adverse inference.
- The court declined to award alimony, considered Paul’s dissipation of marital assets, and found he wilfully violated the automatic orders (Practice Book § 25-5) by mortgaging property, borrowing funds, paying legal fees and withdrawing retirement funds.
- The court ordered each party to pay half the outstanding fees of the attorney for the minor children and the guardian ad litem, finding the affidavits and testimony of those counsel demonstrated reasonableness.
- The court retained the children’s 529 accounts for their benefit, made the defendant custodian, and treated the accounts as marital property subject to equitable distribution (not as an educational support order shifting future educational obligations).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to seal memorandum | Greenan: memorandum contains sensitive family/children details requiring sealing | Greenan opposed sealing; public openness presumption applies | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying sealing; presumption of openness prevails |
| Use of erased arrest record | Greenan: decision improperly created a public record of his erased arrest, contrary to erasure statute | Court/defendant: testimony and evaluation referenced arrest based on personal knowledge, not erased records | Mention of arrest was permissible because erased records were not admitted; statute bars disclosure of records but not consequences or independent testimony |
| Fifth Amendment invocation and adverse inference | Greenan: claiming privilege should not permit adverse inference | Defendant: refusal to answer about events supports adverse inference in civil case | Court properly drew adverse inference in civil proceedings; admissible to infer substance abuse and rely on it in orders |
| Alimony denial | Greenan: trial judge improperly reversed pendente lite alimony without explanation | Defendant: final orders consider broader factors and dissipation; pendente lite differs from final awards | No error; trial court considered §46b-82 factors and had discretion to deny alimony given dissipation and other conduct |
| Contempt for violating automatic orders (Practice Book §25-5) | Greenan: expenditures were for legal fees, living costs, and necessary repairs, not contempt | Defendant: unilateral encumbrances, loans, conversions depleted marital estate | Court did not abuse discretion finding wilful violation of automatic orders and considering dissipation in final relief |
| Payment of GAL / attorney for children fees | Greenan: fees unreasonable; no separate hearing; challenges counsel’s conduct | Defendant: affidavits, testimony showed complexity and hours; court has discretion under §46b-62 | Court reasonably found fees fair and reasonable based on affidavits/testimony and split the costs |
| 529 accounts treatment | Greenan: order violates educational support statute limits and improperly assigns his property | Defendant: accounts are existing marital property for children’s benefit; court changed custodian not future educational obligation | Court treated 529s as marital property, made defendant custodian, and did not err — order is distribution, not an educational support order |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440 (Conn. 1986) (erasure statute bars disclosure of official records but does not shield a person from consequences of prior actions or from testimony based on personal knowledge)
- Olin Corp. v. Castells, 180 Conn. 49 (Conn. 1980) (Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases does not preclude adverse inferences when probative evidence is offered)
- Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328 (Conn. 1983) (final dissolution orders need not mirror pendente lite awards; different purposes justify changes)
- Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356 (Conn. 1998) (marital property classification is broad; court has stages of classification, valuation, distribution)
- Lamacchia v. Chilinsky, 79 Conn. App. 372 (Conn. App. 2003) (court may order payment of counsel for minor children/guardian ad litem; must consider parties’ resources and §46b-82 factors)
- Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 107 Conn. App. 488 (Conn. App. 2008) (trial court has general knowledge to evaluate reasonableness of attorneys’ fees; dollar amount requires evidentiary support)
- Traystman v. Traystman, 141 Conn. App. 789 (Conn. App. 2013) (contempt requires wilfulness; abuse of discretion standard for contempt findings)
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2005) (appellate review will not disturb equitable distribution unless trial court misapplies required considerations)