Jungnelius v. Jungnelius
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 53
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a dissolution of marriage in New London, Connecticut on February 20, 2009; residency before filing established CT domicile for 12 months prior to filing.
- The parties resided in Connecticut from 2002 until their separation in 2009, with Gustaf attending school in Mystic, CT.
- Before the CT action, the defendant filed a dissolution action in Sweden and the plaintiff learned of it only in August 2009.
- Plaintiff moved to restore the CT case to the docket in August 2009; defendant moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, which the court denied.
- A limited contested trial occurred in April 2010; the trial court issued a memorandum of decision in May 2010 addressing custody, earning capacity, and alimony.
- The court ultimately ordered the defendant to pay alimony to the plaintiff at $3600 per week for five years and $3000 per week for seven years, among other financial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution | LaBow residency standard satisfied; CT domicile established | No CT residency at critical times; lack of domicile | Yes, court had subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether CT residency satisfied § 46b-44 (c)(1) for decree | Plaintiff and defendant domiciled in CT for 12 months before filing | Domicile abandoned during travel; no continuous CT residence | Yes, domicile plus continuous CT residence established before filing |
| Whether alimony award was an abuse of discretion | Court properly applied § 46b-82 criteria; equitable division | Alimony too high relative to income; taxed differently in Europe | No; court appropriately applied law and discretion and upheld award |
Key Cases Cited
- LaBow v. LaBow, 171 Conn. 433 (1976) (residency suffices for dissolution when one party resides in CT)
- Sauter v. Sauter, 4 Conn.App. 581 (1985) (statutory residency framework for dissolution jurisdiction)
- Adame v. Adame, 154 Conn. 389 (1966) (domicil defined as residence plus intention to stay)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (2010) (broad discretion in alimony with required reasoning)