McRae v. McRae
20 A.3d 1255
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Sandy D. McRae and Scott A. McRae were married on September 2, 1989 and have two daughters.
- Sandy owned Distinctive Finishes, LLC, a decorative painting business; Scott owned Creative Change, Inc., which develops hospital software.
- The dissolution trial focused on valuing Creative and on alimony/estate division under Connecticut statutes.
- During trial, expert valuations differed: Sandy’s expert estimated Creative at $376,968; Scott’s expert valued it at $56,000.
- The court valued Sandy’s business at $2,500 and Creative at $144,000, incorporating an $88,000 Middlesex Hospital check.
- The court ordered ten years of periodic alimony and issued a monetary offset from escrow to balance marital assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper valuation of Creative | McRae argues the court misvalued Creative by wrongfully adding the hospital check value. | McRae contends the hospital check was prepayment for future work and should not be fully added. | Valuation was not improper; hospital check earned by completion and properly incorporated. |
| Cash offset plus alimony for business value | Court can consider §46b-81 assets and award alimony based on earning capacity. | No double dipping; alimony derived from earnings should not be tied to the business value offset. | Alimony and asset distribution upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
| Double dipping prohibition | Award of alimony is permissible even when a business is valued for property division. | Alimony should not be tied to income from remaining capital after valuation. | Court allowed alimony based on earning capacity without improper double counting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 124 Conn.App. 204 (2010) (broad discretion in domestic relations; defer to trial court)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 121 Conn.App. 659 (2010) (patently erroneous methodology if critical factors are ignored)
- Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673 (1990) (use date of dissolution for estate valuation)
- DiCerto v. Jones, 108 Conn.App. 184 (2008) (statutory framework for asset distribution in dissolution)
- Bornemann v. Bornemann, 245 Conn. 508 (1998) (trial court valuation credibility and methodology review)
- Stearns v. Stearns, 4 Conn.App. 323 (1985) (heightened deference to trial court’s factual findings)
- Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership, LLP, 298 Conn. 495 (2010) (credibility and evidentiary weight in factual findings)