148 Conn. App. 837
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Husband (Rousseau) and wife (Perricone) married 2007; both invested separately in California cosmetics ventures pre- and during marriage; investments (~$2M each) produced no returns by trial.
- Dispute arose over ownership, transfers and alleged misconduct related to those investments and a proposed consolidation ("roll up") into a holding company involving third-party investor Haralambus.
- Wife filed a separate civil suit against husband and others alleging misconduct; that suit was pending at time of dissolution trial.
- At dissolution trial, Haralambus testified but refused to identify other investors citing confidentiality agreements; wife sought to strike his testimony for that refusal.
- Trial court found no fraud/undue influence by husband, concluded the $500,000 transfers from wife were part of her voluntary investment, ordered wife to release/hold harmless husband as to the pending civil action, and imposed a $25,000 sanction on wife for discovery noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rousseau) | Defendant's Argument (Perricone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not striking Haralambus’s testimony after he refused to identify other investors | Haralambus’s limited testimony was permissible; confidentiality justified withholding identities; cross-exam was otherwise extensive | Denial of identifying non-party investors prevented meaningful impeachment and violated due process | Court didn’t abuse discretion; identity was immaterial and cross-exam covered the critical issues |
| Whether plaintiff must repay $500,000 transferred by defendant | Transfers were investments by defendant into the venture, not wrongful transfers needing repayment | Transfers were unauthorized/double-dealing by plaintiff and should be repaid to defendant | Trial court’s finding that transfers were voluntary investments was not clearly erroneous; no repayment ordered |
| Whether trial court properly ordered defendant to release and hold plaintiff harmless re: her pending civil suit | The pending cause of action is an asset/property interest subject to §46b-81; court could allocate risk and order release/indemnity to preserve equitable distribution | Order improperly deprived defendant of property because it did not transfer title or quantify value | Cause of action is a distributable property interest; court permissibly ordered release/hold harmless and allocation of defense costs to maintain equitable result |
| Whether $25,000 sanction for discovery violations was erroneous or improper against defendant for attorney’s conduct | Sanction was warranted: defendant and counsel willfully failed to comply with multiple discovery orders; amount supported by trial familiarity with fees | Sanction wrongly attributed to defendant for counsel’s decisions; amount arbitrary | Sanction upheld: court’s findings of willful noncompliance supported awarding fees; $25,000 was reasonable and within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356 (Conn. 1998) (framework: classify resource as property, then value, then distribute under §46b-81)
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (Conn. 2009) (broad view of "property" under §46b-81 but limited to presently existing interests)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2012) (attorney’s fees in dissolution actions may be awarded for egregious discovery misconduct)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (Conn. 2007) (trial court discretion to award fees for egregious litigation misconduct in dissolution cases)
- Silver v. Silver, 112 Conn. App. 145 (Conn. App. 2009) (a right of action is property for purposes of distribution)
- Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733 (Conn. 2001) (distinguishing valuation and classification stages for distributable interests)
- Corriveau v. Corriveau, 126 Conn. App. 231 (Conn. App. 2011) (standard for determining whether cross-examination restriction is undue)