Mensah v. Mensah
75 A.3d 92
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Marriage of Mensah and Mensah in 1991 produced three children; assets included Ghana properties and a heavily encumbered Broadbrook home.
- Plaintiff: USPS employee with pension and thrift plan; occasional day trading income; defendant: two businesses (Ghana vehicle trading and Eagle Delivery Service).
- Discovery disputes and multiple contempt/motion-to-compel filings; court withheld full income/asset clarity prior to trial.
- Trial court found concealment of income/assets, incomplete financial records, and lack of business valuations; issued financial orders dividing property and child support.
- Judgment awarded no alimony, plaintiff custody, specific asset divisions, and $40,000 to defendant from pensions/savings; each party to bear own attorney’s fees.
- Defendant later sought appellate attorney’s fees; court granted $29,366.30 based on perceived relative finances, despite limited financial data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether financial orders rested on adequate evidence | Mensah argues lack of discovery and valuations tainted financial orders. | Mensah contends trial court had sufficient basis to allocate assets and set support. | Financial orders vacated; remand for new hearing. |
| Whether the division of marital assets and alimony were appropriate | Insufficient financial information impaired fair division and alimony consideration. | Court acted within discretion given evidence presented. | Reversed for lack of evidentiary basis; remand ordered. |
| Whether child support amount was properly calculated | Support figures relied on unreliable income data. | Guidelines applied; figures derive from available data. | Reversed; require new determination with adequate evidence. |
| Whether appellate attorney’s fees were properly awarded post judgment | Automatic stay precluded such fees from joint assets; data insufficient. | Award warranted based on relative finances under §46b-62. | Vacated; new proceedings on fees anticipated after remand. |
| Whether defendant's cross-appeal on pension valuation was properly addressed | Valuation and disclosure failures prejudiced defendant’s position. | Pension/ thrift share should be adjudicated with expert valuation. | Remand to resolve evidentiary gaps and valuation disputes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duart v. Dept. of Correction, 303 Conn. 479 (2012) (heightened duty of disclosure in marital cases)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (2007) (need for complete income/asset information)
- Demartino v. Demartino, 79 Conn. App. 488 (2003) (evidentiary standard in family matters; no speculation)
- Angle v. Angle, 100 Conn. App. 763 (2007) (appellate review of factual findings; clear error standard)
- Aley v. Aley, 101 Conn. App. 220 (2007) (child support worksheet must be based on underlying evidence)
- Brown v. Brown, 130 Conn. App. 522 (2011) (statutory criteria for division of property and support)
- Krattenstein v. G. Fox & Co., 155 Conn. 609 (1967) (settled settlement discussions and pretrial conduct)