McKeon v. Lennon
27 A.3d 436
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Maria F. McKeon and William P. Lennon were married in 1981 and have three children; dissolution judgment entered December 31, 2007.
- Post-judgment motions included: motion to open (fraudulent nondisclosure claims, etc.), motions to modify child support, and contempt motions regarding a beach house and CUTMA accounts.
- The trial court opened part of the dissolution judgment about vehicle expenses, but denied several other open claims and reserved on some issues pending an evidentiary hearing.
- McKeon appealing AC 30067 challenged denial of the motion to open; AC 30068 challenged denial of modification of child support; AC 30069 challenged attorney’s fees awarded to Lennon; AC 30070 challenged beach house/CUTMA orders; AC 30636 challenged attorney’s fees awarded to Lennon in contempt defense.
- Appellate issues: subject matter jurisdiction on finality; whether evidentiary hearings were required for modification; whether bad-faith attorney’s fees were warranted; and proper interpretation/clarification of contempt-related orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of AC 30067 | Appeal from open judgment is final and appealable. | AC 30067 is not from a final judgment; no subject matter jurisdiction. | AC 30067 dismissed for lack of final judgment. |
| Modification of child support | Evidentiary hearing required to show substantial change in circumstances. | Allegations insufficient for modification; no hearing needed. | Court abused discretion; remand for evidentiary hearings on modification issues. |
| Attorney's fees on modification | Bad faith finding unsupported; fee award invalid. | Fees warranted under discretion for bad-faith modification filings. | Ac 30069: bad-faith finding unsupported; reverse award of fees. |
| Contempt/education accounts and beach house orders (AC 30070) | Beach house ownership implied; CUTMA accounts misused. | No impermissible modification; orders proper and within contempt scope. | AC 30070 affirmed; no improper modification; CUTMA usage deemed proper. |
| Attorney's fees on contempt (AC 30636, amended) | Lack of finality; improper for award without clear basis. | Fees justified under bad-faith/improper conduct standards. | AC 30636 dismissal for lack of final judgment; amended judgment reversed; vacate fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (interlocutory orders may be appealable when they terminate a distinct proceeding)
- Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (2009) (interlocutory rulings must not implicate merits; finality inquiry)
- DeCorso v. Calderaro, 118 Conn.App. 617 (2009) (final judgment rule discourages piecemeal appeals)
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (sanctions/bad faith: due process, specific factual basis required; discretion under 46b-62)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (2007) (attorney’s fees in dissolution actions; abuse of discretion standards and Maguire framework)
- Maguire v. Maguire, 222 Conn. 32 (1992) (general rule on attorney’s fees in dissolution; exemptions for misconduct)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 104 Conn.App. 482 (2007) (substantial change in circumstances standard; burden on movant)