312 Conn. 428
Conn.2014Background
- Catherine Reville moved to open a 2001 dissolution judgment, claiming John Reville committed fraud by failing to disclose an accrued but unvested partner pension in financial affidavits and settlement negotiations.
- The parties’ 2001 dissolution incorporated a separation agreement splitting assets; Reville alleged she would not have agreed to that split had she known of the pension (claimed value > $1M–$2M).
- The trial court bifurcated the hearing: Phase I — whether the unvested pension was "property" under § 46b-81 in May 2001; Phase II — if so, whether nondisclosure was fraudulent and material.
- After hearing expert and lay testimony, the trial court concluded the pension was not distributable property in May 2001, found the defendant had orally disclosed the pension, excluded evidence of the pension’s value as irrelevant, and denied the motion to open.
- The Supreme Court held the trial court erred by treating the pension classification as dispositive, by excluding valuation evidence, and by thereby abusing its discretion in denying the motion to open; it affirmed that the plaintiff bore the burden to prove fraud under existing law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an accrued but unvested partner pension had to be treated as "property" under § 46b-81 for purposes of disclosure and equitable distribution in May 2001 | Reville: unvested pension was a distributable asset or at minimum had to be disclosed; Bender (and trend) supported disclosure/distribution | Reville’s pension was not distributable pre-Bender; Bender postdated the decree and should not apply retroactively | Court: Classification was unsettled in 2001; trial court erred by making classification the gatekeeping, dispositive issue — regardless, any potentially receivable retirement benefit must be disclosed and the trial court should not have foreclosed valuation and fraud inquiry |
| Admissibility/relevance of pension valuation evidence | Reville: valuation was highly relevant to credibility, materiality of nondisclosure, and whether result would likely differ | Reville: value was irrelevant if pension was not property; trial court excluded it accordingly | Court: Excluding probative valuation evidence was erroneous — value bears on whether nondisclosure was material and would likely change the outcome; exclusion constituted reversible evidentiary error |
| Allocation/burden of proof for fraud when a party fails to list a substantial asset | Reville: once a substantial asset is omitted, the burden should shift to the nondisclosing party to prove absence of fraud or harmlessness | Reville: existing Connecticut law places burden on movant to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence | Court: Declined to create a new burden-shifting rule; applying plain error doctrine was inappropriate; existing law (plaintiff bears burden) governs |
| Whether denial of motion to open was an abuse of discretion | Reville: denial was based on flawed legal framework, exclusion of valuation evidence, and erroneous findings on disclosure | Reville: trial court’s credibility findings and nonretroactivity of Bender support its denial | Court: Because of misdirected legal focus and exclusion of valuation evidence, the denial was an abuse of discretion; judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733 (Conn. 2001) (treats unvested pension benefits as distributable property and reflects national trend)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671 (Conn. 2005) (standards for opening dissolution judgments for fraud and full-and-frank-disclosure policy)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 183 Conn. 96 (Conn. 1981) (courts may consider unaccrued/unvested pension benefits when fixing property and alimony)
- Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783 (Conn. 1995) (framework for classification, valuation, and distribution of marital property)