167 Conn. App. 219
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Isabella Mensah (plaintiff), self-represented on appeal, sought relief after remand from a prior appellate decision concerning financial orders in a marital dissolution.
- Original dissolution trial occurred in 2011; financial orders were reversed on appeal and remanded for a new hearing; a five-day retrial was scheduled for September 2014.
- Plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney Miller, sent last-minute medical continuance requests for September 15 and 17, 2014; Miller and plaintiff did not appear at the September 17 hearing and provided limited medical documentation.
- At the remand hearing the court treated the defendant’s testimony and exhibits as uncontroverted, awarded the marital home to the plaintiff but made her responsible for mortgage liabilities and ordered her to pay the defendant $43,000 (half equity), denied alimony, and awarded the defendant a pro rata share of the plaintiff’s postal pension.
- Trial court denied the continuance, citing lateness of the request, prior delays and continuances, lack of sufficient medical proof, plaintiff’s failure to comply with standing orders and discovery, and prejudice from further delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion | Miller’s medical condition prevented attendance and justified continuance | Request was untimely, lacked sufficient proof, prior delays made further delay prejudicial | Court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance; evidence supported the denial |
| Whether court erred by not probing defendant’s income/business (Ghana transactions) | Court should have examined defendant about undisclosed income and property | Plaintiff failed to appear and present/cross-examine; no evidence before court to contradict defendant’s testimony | No error; court may rely on uncontroverted evidence and need not act as plaintiff’s advocate |
| Whether alimony should have been awarded | 21-year marriage and alleged defendant dishonesty warranted alimony | Court considered statutory factors and found no basis for alimony | No abuse of discretion in denying alimony; court considered §46b‑82 factors |
| Whether property/liability division and pension division were improper | Allocation ignored earlier trial evidence and was inequitable (including Ghana property and mortgage liabilities) | Plaintiff presented no current evidence at retrial; defendant testified he held no Ghana title; court divided marital assets based on evidence before it | Orders affirmed; factual findings not clearly erroneous and financial orders within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Godbolt, 161 Conn. App. 367 (App. Ct. Conn.) (factors for continuance and standard of review)
- State v. Beckenbach, 198 Conn. 43 (Conn. 1985) (denial proper where no specific date given for attorney availability)
- Thode v. Thode, 190 Conn. 694 (Conn. 1983) (trial court may deny continuance despite attorney absence; discretion acknowledged)
- Casey v. Casey, 82 Conn. App. 378 (Conn. App. 2004) (broad trial court discretion in family financial orders)
- Demartino v. Demartino, 79 Conn. App. 488 (Conn. App. 2003) (court not required to speculate about evidence not before it)
- Brown v. Brown, 130 Conn. App. 522 (Conn. App. 2011) (alimony affirmed where court could infer income from lifestyle and evidence)