Sosin v. Sosin
14 A.3d 307
| Conn. | 2011Background
- After a 2005 dissolution, the trial court distributed marital assets, awarding the defendant $24,000,000 to be paid from the plaintiff's bank and brokerage accounts.
- The court valued the accounts as of December 31, 2004, totaling about $89,039,617.68, and directed the plaintiff to retain possession of the accounts while the defendant received the lump sum.
- The court overvalued one account by $3,650,000 due to a $57,650,000 figure instead of $54,000,000, creating an apparent $3,650,000 discrepancy.
- The plaintiff moved to reargue, seeking deductions for misvaluations of furniture ($459,700) and to reallocate two paintings; the court reduced the lump sum to $23,834,900 but denied amended relief.
- When the plaintiff paid $20,006,819, the defendant sought interest under § 37-3a; contempt proceedings followed, and the court ordered additional payments with interest.
- The Appellate Court upheld the $23,834,900 award and the interest award but remanded for a purported de novo hearing on postjudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 23, 2006 order to pay $3,828,081 was an improper modification. | Sosin contends the original judgment awarded specific dollar amounts and thus the modification was improper. | Sosin's intent was to award possession of accounts and to award a separate sum to the defendant; the modification reflected that. | Not an improper modification; court had discretion to adjust. |
| Whether § 37-3a permits interest when payment is withheld in good faith. | Withholding was in good faith; thus § 37-3a should not apply. | Detention of money may be wrongful even with good faith; § 37-3a can apply when wrongful. | § 37-3a discretionary; court could award interest even with good-faith withholding. |
| Whether remand for de novo consideration of postjudgment interest was proper. | Remand was necessary due to ambiguity in the interest award. | The March 23, 2006 order, clarified by Nov. 27, 2006, fixed the basis for interest; remand was unnecessary. | Remand was improper; reinstate March 23, 2006 order as clarified by Nov. 27, 2006. |
Key Cases Cited
- General Electric Supply Co. v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 185 Conn. 583, 441 A.2d 581 (1981) (Conn. 1981) (wrongful detention may justify § 37-3a interest even with bona fides)
- United Aircraft Corp. v. International Assn. of Machinists, 161 Conn. 79, 285 A.2d 330 (1971) (Conn. 1971) (interest may be awarded where damage could be ascertained by inquiry)
- MedValUSA Health Programs, Inc. v. MemberWorks, Inc., 273 Conn. 634, 872 A.2d 423 (2005) (Conn. 2005) (contextualizes discretion in § 37-3a determinations)
- Ferrato v. Webster Bank, 67 Conn.App. 588, 789 A.2d 472 (2002) (Conn. App. 2002) (wrongful detention and discretionary interest under § 37-3a)