162 Conn.App. 674
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Parties married in 1989; two children; marriage dissolved by judgment of dissolution entered October 2, 2007 incorporating a Stipulation for Judgment.
- Plaintiff (Reinke) later filed a motion to open the dissolution judgment on May 3, 2010, alleging the defendant (Sing) had failed to disclose assets (fraud basis).
- The trial court (Shay, J.) opened the judgment on September 28, 2010 by the parties’ oral agreement, without expressly finding fraud, to reassess financial orders.
- After a trial ending with a decision on August 23, 2013, the court found the defendant had underreported income and asset values and adjusted alimony, property allocations, and awarded attorney’s fees; a correction followed on September 27, 2013.
- On appeal, this court questioned whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to open the dissolution judgment absent a finding or concession of fraud.
- Citing Forgione v. Forgione, the appellate court held that, without a finding or concession of fraud, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the judgment; the dissolution judgment was reversed and the motion to open was to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could open a dissolution judgment without a finding or concession of fraud | Reinke argued the court properly opened the judgment (parties agreed) and could redress nondisclosure by adjusting alimony, property division, and fees | Sing argued (implicitly) that the opening proceeded without a fraud finding and jurisdictional defect exists was not raised below but parties treated opening as permissible | Court held the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the dissolution judgment absent a finding or concession of fraud; reversal and remand with direction to dismiss the motion to open |
| Whether asset nondisclosure justified modification of property division/alimony where judgment was opened by agreement but no fraud finding | Reinke urged that understated income/assets warranted reassessment and modest changes to alimony and property awards | Sing relied on the procedural posture that no fraud finding was made and opening by agreement cannot confer jurisdiction | Court declined to reach merits because lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded modification absent fraud |
| Whether attorney’s fees should cover the full trial period | Reinke sought fees for the entire fourteen-month trial period | Sing opposed the fee claim as part of the reopened proceeding | Court’s judgment awarding some fees was vacated with reversal for lack of jurisdiction; fee determination subsumed in dismissal of motion to open |
| Effect of parties’ agreement to open judgment on court’s jurisdiction | Reinke relied on the parties’ consent to permit reopening and reallocation | Sing relied on having consented at the time; neither contested jurisdiction below | Court held parties’ agreement does not cure absence of subject matter jurisdiction; fraud finding or concession required |
Key Cases Cited
- Forgione v. Forgione, 162 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2015) (holding a dissolution judgment cannot be opened to alter property division in the absence of a finding or concession of fraud)
- Sousa v. Sousa, 157 Conn. App. 587 (Conn. App. 2015) (explaining that property distribution is not subject to postjudgment modification and addressing limits on motions to modify/open)