LaFrance v. Lodmell
144 A.3d 373
| Conn. | 2016Background
- Parties executed a premarital agreement that contained an arbitration clause addressing dissolution-related financial issues; dispute arose after they separated and sought divorce.
- Defendant Lodmell moved to stay court proceedings and compel arbitration; plaintiff LaFrance moved for a "thorough inquiry" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-66(c) before arbitration proceeded.
- Trial Court (Malone, J.) issued a September 2, 2011 memorandum interpreting the premarital agreement and concluded only the sale of the marital home was subject to arbitration; it did not cite § 46b-66(c) or explicitly apply a "fair and equitable" inquiry.
- Later motions and rulings (including reliance on New Britain v. AFSCME) reaffirmed that, absent contrary intent, the court determines arbitrability; parties disputed whether the trial court had applied § 46b-66(c).
- Justice Zarella (joined by Justice Robinson) concurred in parts II–III of the majority opinion but dissented from part I, arguing (1) the trial court did not apply § 46b-66(c) and (2) § 46b-66(c) should not be read to apply to arbitration clauses in premarital agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 46b-66(c) to arbitration clauses in premarital agreements | §46b-66(c) governs any agreement to arbitrate dissolution issues; the statutory phrase "in an action for dissolution" refers to the type of dispute, not timing, so the court must conduct a pre-arbitration ‘‘thorough inquiry’’ | §46b-66(c) contains a temporal limitation; it applies only to arbitration agreements made after a dissolution action is commenced | Zarella: §46b-66(c) does not apply to arbitration clauses in premarital agreements; construing it to do so would conflict with and render parts of chapter 909 (§52-408) and the Premarital Agreement Act (§46b-36g) superfluous |
| Standard for enforceability of premarital arbitration clauses | Court should apply §46b-66(c)’s "fair and equitable" test before arbitration proceeds | Premarital agreements are governed by the Premarital Agreement Act; enforceability turns on general contract defenses including unconscionability (§46b-36g and §52-408) | Zarella: Premarital arbitration clauses should be tested under existing contract defenses/unconscionability standards (and §52-408), not §46b-66(c)’s fair-and-equitable inquiry |
| Whether the trial court actually applied §46b-66(c) in limiting arbitration | Plaintiff requested the inquiry under §46b-66(c) | Defendant contended the trial court applied §46b-66(c) to limit arbitration | Zarella: Record shows the trial court relied on contract interpretation principles and did not perform the §46b-66(c) inquiry; no error on that basis |
| Who decides arbitrability (court vs. arbitrator) | Plaintiff implicitly contended court should decide scope where parties did not clearly delegate arbitrability | Defendant argued arbitrator should decide arbitrability, relying on New Britain precedent | Zarella: Courts decide arbitrability absent clear and unmistakable evidence that parties intended the arbitrator to decide it; New Britain supports this allocation to the court |
Key Cases Cited
- New Britain v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1186, 304 Conn. 639 (2012) (absent clear and unmistakable evidence, courts determine arbitrability)
- Bedrick v. Bedrick, 300 Conn. 691 (2011) (premarital agreements warrant greater deference and less judicial second-guessing than postnuptial/settlement agreements)
- Thomas v. Dept. of Developmental Services, 297 Conn. 391 (2010) (statutes should be construed harmoniously within the broader statutory scheme)
- Crews v. Crews, 295 Conn. 153 (2010) (courts should not substitute their view of a premarital agreement’s fairness for enforceability analysis)
- AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dept. of Children & Families, 317 Conn. 238 (2015) (arbitration is favored; judicial interference should be limited to preserve arbitration efficiency)
- Weyher v. Weyher, 164 Conn. App. 734 (2016) (example of arbitration applied where agreement to arbitrate arose after dissolution proceeding had been filed)