186 Conn. App. 665
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties divorced in 2007 by a stipulated judgment that generally split marital assets equally and ordered defendant (Sing) to pay unallocated alimony/child support; plaintiff is Gail Reinke.
- In 2010 Reinke moved to open the judgment alleging Sing fraudulently underreported income and assets on his financial affidavits, seeking equitable redistribution.
- The court (by agreement to open) held a multi-day retrial/redistribution hearing; it found underreporting of income and assets but concluded Reinke failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court adjusted financial orders: increased alimony (creating arrearage in plaintiff’s favor), ordered payment of $106,042 (half of certain undisclosed/undervalued assets), split certain retirement assets equally, and awarded $40,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.
- Appellate procedural history: this court initially reversed for lack of jurisdiction; Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, reversed that holding, and remanded to consider the merits; on remand this Appellate Court affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not finding fraud from inaccurate financial affidavits | Reinke: underreporting establishes burden shift; Sing should have to prove fair dealing by clear and convincing evidence | Sing: no fiduciary status established; plaintiff bears burden to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence | Court: No burden shift; plaintiff never pleaded fiduciary status or requested burden shift; trial finding of no fraud supported by evidence |
| Whether alimony award was abusive given underreporting | Reinke: award too small, term shortened, no extension right—court failed to punish nondisclosure and to fully redress harm | Sing: court adjusted awards to remedy nondisclosure; no fraud found so punitive relief not required | Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered statutes and evidence, increased alimony and provided remedy without punitive enhancement |
| Whether division of newly discovered assets was improper | Reinke: undisclosed assets should have been reallocated more favorably to plaintiff as penalty for nondisclosure | Sing: court evenly divided those assets consistent with original stipulation and no fraud finding | Court: No abuse of discretion; equal division consistent with parties’ intent and trial court’s factual findings |
| Whether attorney’s fees award was inadequate/erroneous | Reinke: trial court overlooked later fee affidavit and failed to award fees for 14 months of work caused by defendant’s misconduct | Sing: court reviewed fee claims and reasonably awarded a portion given results obtained | Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered latest affidavit, found fees disproportionate to results, and appropriately exercised discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212 (Conn. 1991) (establishes duty of full and frank disclosure in dissolution financial affidavits and rejects diligence requirement to discover fraud)
- Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428 (Conn. 2014) (reiterates disclosure duty and rejects automatic burden shift once nondisclosure established)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (Conn. 2007) (discusses fiduciary-like duty of disclosure in dissolution context and awarding fees for discovery misconduct)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671 (Conn. 2005) (reversible error where trial court overlooked clear and convincing evidence of fraudulent undervaluation)
- Dietter v. Dietter, 54 Conn. App. 481 (Conn. App. 1999) (distinguishes fiduciary-duty burden shifting where facts do not establish a fiduciary relationship)