Powell-Ferri v. Ferri
165 A.3d 1124
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Parties: Nancy Powell-Ferri (plaintiff) and Paul J. Ferri, Jr. (defendant); married 19 years with three minor children; plaintiff homemaker.
- Defendant is sole beneficiary of a 1983 trust (created by his father) used mainly for investments; trust funded some home improvements and paid taxes; trust indirectly funded franchise acquisitions.
- While divorce was pending, trustees decanted most assets from the 1983 trust into a new 2011 spendthrift trust benefitting only Ferri.
- A related declaratory judgment action addressed the propriety of decanting; Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held decanting was permitted; this Court adopted that decision, leaving assets in the spendthrift trust beyond reach in the dissolution.
- The trial court entered alternative financial orders: one assuming return of 75% of decanted assets (if decanting reversed) and another assuming decanting upheld; it awarded substantial alimony/child support and structured attorney’s fees to require Ferri to pay amounts equal to what he paid his own counsel (limited until first lump-sum alimony payment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Powell‑Ferri contributed to value of 1983 trust | Powell‑Ferri claimed homemaking and tax refund contributions increased trust value and entitled her to share | Decanting was upheld; assets are in a spendthrift trust and not divisible | Court declined to reach merits; because decanting upheld, 1983/2011 trust assets were not marital assets for distribution |
| Whether Ferri was in contempt for failing to sue trustees under Practice Book §25‑5 | Powell‑Ferri argued automatic orders required Ferri to pursue trustees to restore status quo and that his inaction amounted to "disposition"/dissipation | Ferri had no duty to sue nonparties; trustees acted lawfully; Ferri was unaware and did not facilitate decanting | Court held automatic orders do not impose affirmative duty to sue trustees; no contempt |
| Whether value of 2011 spendthrift trust (or a chose in action) is marital property | Powell‑Ferri argued Ferri had a chose in action for breach of fiduciary duty entitling court to distribute full value | Ferri had no existing/recognized chose in action: trustees acted lawfully, no breach alleged or litigated | Court held no existing chose in action; 2011 trust was spendthrift and not distributable |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in structuring attorney’s fee award | Powell‑Ferri argued award (tied to what Ferri paid his own counsel and ending at first lump sum payment) allowed manipulation to avoid fees | Trial court tied fee obligation to Ferri’s payments and other financial orders; no evidence Ferri would not pay his counsel | Court affirmed fee structure as not an abuse of discretion given overall financial scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeoli v. Commissioner of Social Services, 179 Conn. 83 (spendthrift trust definition and reachability)
- Gershman v. Gershman, 286 Conn. 341 (dissipation doctrine requires improper conduct by a party)
- Finan v. Finan, 287 Conn. 491 (context for dissipation analysis)
- Blake v. Blake, 207 Conn. 217 (factors for property assignment and alimony)
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (clarifying contempt review—clarity of order and willfulness)
- Jewett v. Jewett, 265 Conn. 669 (standards for awarding counsel fees in dissolution)
- Bornemann v. Bornemann, 245 Conn. 508 (chose in action/pension right principles)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (contempt and appellate standards)