Shaulson v. Shaulson
125 Conn. App. 734
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Trial court dissolved Shaulson marriage, awarded plaintiff home and lots, and ordered $40,000 monthly unallocated alimony and child support (later $30,000).
- Court found defendant dissipated substantial marital assets in violation of automatic orders, allocating the dissipation to his share of assets.
- Court determined no life insurance trust existed, but awarded the cash value of the policies ($650,000) to defendant.
- Appellant challenged dissipation finding, trust ruling, and unallocated support; appellee defended rulings.
- Postjudgment and articulation proceedings clarified earning capacity as basis for support: $900,000 annual, net about $540,000; home equity about $341,413; lots $200,000 total.
- Appellate Court reviewed for abuse of discretion, deferential to trial court's credibility determinations and factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissipation finding was proper | Shaulson dissipated assets, violating orders. | Expenditure to furnish a new home was ordinary and necessary. | Yes, proper; expenditure deemed dissipation under circumstances. |
| Whether cash value of life insurance policy should go to defendant despite no trust | Funds were assets of the marital estate. | No trust exists and cash value should go to him. | Yes, court could award cash value to defendant even without trust. |
| Whether unallocated alimony and child support order complied with guidelines | Guidelines application required; worksheet or deviation findings warranted. | Court deviated properly due to earning capacity. | Unallocated order sustained; defendant failed to file guidelines worksheet, review constrained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gershman v. Gershman, 286 Conn. 341 (2008) (dissipation requires misconduct plus marital purpose)
- Finan v. Finan, 287 Conn. 491 (2008) (court may consider dissipation in asset division)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (trial court credibility bound; appellate deferential review)
- Favrow v. Vargas, 231 Conn. 1 (1994) (adherence to guidelines procedures as to review)
- Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn.App. 783 (2003) (failure to submit guidelines worksheet precludes challenge)
- Kunajukr v. Kunajukr, 83 Conn.App. 478 (2004) (worksheet deficiency bars guideline challenges)
- Gentile v. Carneiro, 107 Conn. App. 630 (2008) (guidelines deviation and review standards)