O'Brien v. O'Brien
161 A.3d 1236
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Michael J. O’Brien filed for dissolution in 2008; automatic Practice Book §25-5 orders (prohibiting sale/transfer of property without consent or court order) remained in effect through appeal and remand.
- While those orders were in effect, O’Brien sold 28,127 vested Omnicom shares (2009) and later exercised 75,000 Omnicom options (2010, 2012) without the defendant’s consent or court permission, converting proceeds to cash and disclosing after the fact.
- Defendant moved for contempt on remand; trial court found the transactions violated the automatic orders but were not wilful, so it denied contempt.
- The trial court credited expert testimony that the transactions reduced the marital estate’s value by about $3.5 million (value at remand trial ~$6.1M vs. value when transacted ~$2.56M) and adjusted the property division in defendant’s favor (approx. 68% to defendant) and awarded retroactive alimony.
- Appellate Court reversed, holding the trial court lacked authority to remediate via property adjustment absent a contempt finding or a finding of dissipation; this Court granted certification and reversed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could consider non-wilful violations of automatic orders in dividing marital property | O’Brien: Court could not punish or reduce share absent a contempt finding or a dissipation finding; poor investment decisions don’t equal dissipation | O’Brien (defendant): Court may address harm from unauthorized transactions either under §46b-81 or inherent authority to make injured party whole | Held: Trial court may remedy harm from order violations (even if not wilful) under its inherent authority and may adjust property distribution to compensate the injured party |
| Proper valuation date for remedial award (date of dissolution vs. date of remand trial) | O’Brien: Sunbury requires valuing marital property as of dissolution date; remedial award should not use post-breach appreciation | Defendant: Remedial aim is to put injured party in the position she would have occupied absent violation — using remand trial value is appropriate | Held: Sunbury governs statutory §46b-81 distributions but does not limit inherent-authority remedies; court properly used remand-trial value to measure actual loss to defendant |
| Applicability of "usual course of business" exception to automatic orders for stock transactions | O’Brien: Stock transactions are (or should be presumed) usual-course and therefore permitted | Defendant: No presumption; applicability is fact-specific and the trial court found exception inapplicable | Held: No bright-line or presumption adopted; trial court’s implicit finding that transactions were not in usual course of business stands |
| Whether unvested/options exercised after dissolution are marital property | O’Brien: Options vested/exercised post-dissolution and were retention incentives, so not marital property | Defendant: Options were awarded during marriage and were compensation for past services, thus marital | Held: Trial court’s factual finding that options were compensation for past services (marital property) was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 260 Conn. 232 (Conn. 2002) (recognizing that lack of wilfulness in violating an order does not deprive a court of enforcement authority)
- Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673 (Conn. 1990) (when redistributing marital property on remand under §46b-81, use values as of original divorce date absent exceptional intervening circumstances)
- Gershman v. Gershman, 286 Conn. 341 (Conn. 2008) (poor investment decisions alone generally do not constitute dissipation absent intent and selfish purpose)
- Clement v. Clement, 34 Conn. App. 641 (Conn. App. 1994) (trial court may award compensatory relief to make a party whole even when contempt finding is vacated or absent)
- DeMartino v. Monroe Little League, Inc., 192 Conn. 271 (Conn. 1984) (contempt proceedings may be used to compensate complainant for losses sustained)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (U.S. 2017) (remedial awards must be limited to redressing losses sustained and not serve as punitive measures)