Keller v. Keller
142 A.3d 1197
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Beth Keller filed for dissolution in 2011 after a 1992 marriage; three children (18, 15, 12 at decision). Trial court issued multiple pendente lite orders, this court reversed and remanded earlier orders, and the final dissolution and financial orders were entered July 9, 2014.
- Plaintiff has a master’s in clinical nutrition, limited workforce participation for ~14 years, earning $500/mo at decision; court found earning capacity $26,000/yr and additional recurring parental gifts of $72,000/yr (treated as income).
- Defendant formerly ran a hedge fund (Angler) that collapsed; court found an earning capacity of $175,000/yr and noted potential for substantial future improvement; he had received earlier Sandler distributions some of which he used to repay loans.
- Major financial orders: defendant to pay $3,000/month alimony; plaintiff to quitclaim the marital home interest to defendant for $225,000; defendant to pay plaintiff 90% of any remaining Sandler carried interest ($639,200 balance); court declined to order child support given guideline maximum exceeded; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant $25,000 toward legal fees for litigation misconduct/bad faith.
- Trial court found plaintiff violated multiple court orders (contempt findings), engaged in conduct about allegedly fabricated/obtained pornographic materials and deceptive testimony, and therefore sanctioned her under the bad-faith exception to the American Rule; plaintiff appealed claiming errors on income basis, sanctions, imputed income, and overall inequity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of gross vs. net income | Keller: court relied on gross income (improper) when fashioning financial orders | Keller (defendant): court referenced net income for child support and relied on net figures from affidavits and worksheets | Court: no reversible error — child support used net income; absence of explicit net calculation for alimony not fatal where court relied on net-based materials and previously demonstrated proper deductions |
| Sanctions for litigation misconduct / bad faith | Keller: court conflated Ramin (discovery misconduct) with Maris bad-faith standard; her acts not shown to be entirely without color or in bad faith | Keller (defendant): court applied proper bad-faith test and sanctions were warranted | Court: acknowledged blending of doctrines but applied Maris two-part bad-faith test with adequate findings; sanctions under bad-faith exception affirmed |
| Imputed income from parental payments | Keller: parental payments were loans (she would repay if able); court improperly treated them as income and imputed $78,000/yr | Keller (defendant): trial court properly characterized payments as support/gifts based on credibility and circumstances and imputed income | Court: characterization of payments is factual/credibility-based; trial court reasonably found payments were effectively support/gifts and did not abuse discretion |
| Overall fairness of financial orders | Keller: orders are grossly inequitable — disparate treatment of family loans, Sandler distributions, bankruptcy implications, conduct | Keller (defendant): trial court acted within broad equitable discretion and considered statutory factors | Court: affirmed — wide discretion in property and alimony division; court reasonably differentiated parties’ conduct and financial histories; orders not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299 (2003) (support and alimony orders must be based on available net income)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (2007) (sanctions for egregious discovery misconduct)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (2012) (limits of Ramin and recognition that courts may use bad-faith exception to the American Rule for non-discovery frivolous filings)
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (two-part bad-faith exception test: claims entirely without color and litigant acted in bad faith)
- Zahringer v. Zahringer, 262 Conn. 360 (2003) (characterization of family payments as loans vs. income is a factual credibility determination)
- Casey v. Casey, 82 Conn. App. 378 (2004) (reversal where financial orders saddled one party with mortgage debt that benefited the other)
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (2005) (reversal where financial orders produced an income deficit after required payments)