154 Conn.App. 766
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Peter Oldani and Jacqueline Oldani married in 2002; plaintiff was substantially wealthier and they executed a prenuptial agreement. The couple had one child (b. 2004).
- Divorce judgment issued by Judge Pinkus in 2009 found the prenup enforceable, dissolved the marriage, and entered financial orders (including sale of marital home and mortgage/tax allocations).
- Appellate Court in Oldani v. Oldani, 132 Conn. App. 609 (2011) (Oldani I) reversed the finding that the prenup was enforceable because plaintiff failed to disclose sufficient information about his income, and remanded for a new hearing on all financial orders and attorney’s fees.
- On remand plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to add six tort/fraud counts; defendant sought summary judgment; the trial referee (Judge Owens) conducted a retrial on financial orders in 2013, considered some fraud evidence but ultimately concluded those claims were outside the remand and rendered judgment for defendant on the amended counts.
- Judge Owens valued the marital home at remand-hearing values, allocated mortgage/tax responsibilities in light of defendant’s pending bankruptcy, denied plaintiff’s contempt motion after hearing it, awarded defendant $25,000 in attorney’s fees, and otherwise affirmed financial allocations.
- This appeal challenges (1) trial court exceeding scope of remand by entertaining/amending and adjudicating nonfinancial tort counts, (2) failure to hold a proper contempt hearing, and (3) various other errors (insufficiently briefed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court exceeded remand by adjudicating amended tort counts | Oldani: remand permitted consideration of related matters; amended complaint claims properly considered under Rizzo Pool Co. | Oldani I remand limited to financial orders and fees; amended tort counts were extraneous | Court: trial court exceeded remand; reversed judgment on counts 2–7, ordered denial of amendment and vacatur of those judgments |
| Proper valuation date for marital property on remand | Oldani: property should be valued as of dissolution (2009), not remand (2013) | Owens: relied on evidence of value at remand hearing | Court: remand-value finding was error but harmless because both parties owned equal shares and diminution affected both equally; claim fails |
| Whether plaintiff was denied a contempt hearing | Oldani: court initially refused and then gave inadequate preparation time | Owens: motion for contempt was heard during remand proceedings and denied on the merits | Court: contempt motion was heard and denial stands; claim fails |
| Whether trial court erred in considering/deciding extraneous matters on remand | Oldani: trial court should have limited proceedings to remand scope | Owens: permitted limited evidence but resolved financial issues and noted appellate ruling | Court: trial court should have complied strictly with mandate; exceeded scope by adjudicating amended tort counts; remainder of financial rulings affirmed absent adequate briefing of other alleged errors |
Key Cases Cited
- McHugh v. McHugh, 181 Conn. 482 (Conn. 1980) (party duty to disclose financial information pre‑marriage for enforceability of prenup)
- Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673 (Conn. 1990) (use of dissolution date to value estate on remand absent exceptional intervening circumstances)
- Tobey v. Tobey, 165 Conn. 742 (Conn. 1974) (valuation principles for marital property)
- Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656 (Conn. App. 2000) (marital property valued as of date of dissolution)
- Kremenitzer v. Kremenitzer, 81 Conn. App. 135 (Conn. App. 2004) (date-of-dissolution valuation applies where value decreased)
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 240 Conn. 58 (Conn. 1997) (remand scope may include matters necessary to effectuate mandate, but not extraneous claims)
- Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300 Conn. 325 (Conn. 2011) (trial court must comply strictly with appellate mandate)
- Oldani v. Oldani, 132 Conn. App. 609 (Conn. App. 2011) (prior appellate decision reversing prenup enforceability and remanding for new hearing on financial orders)