Schoenborn v. Schoenborn
144 Conn. App. 846
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Leszek M. Schoenbom (pro se) and Maigorzata Schoenbom married in 2000, signed an antenuptial agreement protecting separate property, and had three children; dissolution action filed in 2010 and trial held in Feb. 2012.
- The trial court dissolved the marriage, awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Maigorzata, and adopted the guardian ad litem’s parenting plan limiting Leszek to specified weeknight and alternating weekend visitation.
- The antenuptial agreement, drafted by Leszek’s attorney and signed by both spouses, waived alimony and preserved separate ownership/appreciation of premarital property.
- By dissolution, Maigorzata had grown a dental practice and amassed ~ $1.5 million in assets; Leszek’s assets grew from ~$1.6M to ~$2M and included numerous rental units.
- The court found the antenuptial agreement valid and not unconscionable, calculated both parties’ gross and net weekly income (Leszek: gross $4,000 / net $2,624; Maigorzata: gross $4,867 / net $2,753), and ordered Leszek to pay $335/week child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of parenting time | Court abused discretion; visitation too limited | Guardian ad litem and experts recommended limited, alternating weekend visitation | Affirmed—trial court credited GAL and experts and did not abuse discretion |
| Enforceability of antenuptial agreement | Agreement is unconscionable at dissolution because wife’s success was unforeseeable | Agreement was knowingly executed, terms contemplated future appreciation and were enforced by parties | Affirmed—agreement not unconscionable; circumstances were within parties’ contemplation |
| Consideration of defendant’s earning capacity in child support | Court relied only on actual income, ignored earning capacity (statutory requirement) | Court expressly considered earning capacity and deviation criteria before applying guidelines | Affirmed—court considered earning capacity and permissibly applied guidelines without deviation |
| Calculation of plaintiff’s earning capacity | Court erred in declining to credit Leszek’s testimony/documents and overstated his income | Trial court found Leszek’s disclosures unreliable and calculated earning capacity from lifestyle and property evidence | Affirmed—trial court’s credibility findings and earning-capacity calculation not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Crews v. Crews, 295 Conn. 153 (Conn. 2010) (framework for evaluating enforceability/unconscionability of antenuptial agreements)
- McKechnie v. McKechnie, 130 Conn. App. 411 (Conn. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody/visitation determinations)
- Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316 (Conn. App. 2008) (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
- Sander v. Sander, 96 Conn. App. 102 (Conn. App. 2006) (trial court’s broad discretion in financial orders on dissolution)
- Tanzman v. Meurer, 309 Conn. 105 (Conn. 2013) (authority regarding determination of specific dollar amounts for earning capacity)