Kupersmith v. Kupersmith
146 Conn. App. 79
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- 2004 dissolution judgment incorporated a separation agreement and joint parenting plan; alimony lump sum $11,700,000, monthly $30,000, and $1,500 per child monthly for support, plus 85% of education/activities expenses, with interest for late payment.
- Postjudgment disputes over compliance with the separation agreement/joint parenting plan led to multiple stipulations and contempt motions from 2007 to 2011.
- 2011 stipulation fixed total arrears at $1,050,000 (includes child support arrears through Feb 2011, education and other arrears, fees, and future education expenses), secured by asset pledges and continued injunctions.
- November 23, 2011: the court issued a prejudgment remedy in favor of the plaintiff for $760,000; February–July 2012: additional contempt/motion proceedings; July 10, 2012: court denied motion to vacate and lifted temporary suspension on execution; July 30, 2012: defendant appealed.
- The defendant argued the 2004 dissolution judgment and 2011 stipulation were infirm (child support guideline deviation, omission of $11.7m, and a monetary penalty in the agreement), and that postjudgment execution under chapter 906 was improper for a family support order; the plaintiff sought attorney’s fees for defending the motion to vacate.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate but reversed the award of attorney’s fees for bad-faith conduct, remanding to strike that fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postjudgment property execution may enforce a family support judgment | 46b-84(a) allows postjudgment procedures to secure support | §52-350a/f prohibit such execution for family support | Yes; writ permissible for delinquent family support under §46b-84(a) as amended. |
| Whether the court properly lifted the temporary suspension of execution given alleged defects in the 2004 dissolution judgment | No collateral attack; judgments not open for review after 4 months | Judgment flaws justify delaying execution | Collateral attack rejected; court’s review limited; suspension lifted consistent with law. |
| Whether the attorney’s fees awarded to plaintiff for defending the motion to vacate were proper | Fees warranted due to defense of motion to vacate | Fees should not be awarded; insufficient factual basis for bad-faith finding | Abused discretion; bad-faith finding unsupported by specific factual findings; fee award reversed. |
| Whether the 2011 stipulation and the underlying 2004/2003 framework complied with child support guidelines and related enforcement provisions | Stipulation aligns with enforcement goals and 46b-84(a) authority | Potential guideline noncompliance and mischaracterization of assets | Court’s reliance on the 2003 amendment to §46b-84(a) and related authorities upheld; writ proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dougan v. Dougan, 301 Conn. 361 (Conn. 2011) (enforceability of nontaxable default penalties; applicable to postjudgment remedies)
- Battersby v. Battersby, 218 Conn. 467 (Conn. 1991) (child support guidelines and deviation considerations)
- Barber v. Barber, 114 Conn. App. 164 (Conn. App. 2009) (regarding on-point issues about arrearage evidence in breach scenarios)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (Conn. 2010) (direct appeal to reconsider support calculations; limits collateral review)
- Richards v. Richards, 78 Conn. App. 734 (Conn. App. 2003) (procedural openness to open judgments; four-month rule)
- Maguire v. Maguire, 222 Conn. 32 (Conn. 1992) (attorney’s fees in dissolution cases; criteria for awards)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2012) (bad-faith exception to attorney’s fees; need specific factual findings)