Sousa v. Sousa
164 A.3d 702
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Eric (plaintiff) and Donna (defendant) divorced in 2001; their separation agreement split Eric’s police pension 50/50 via QDRO and set alimony $130/week for five years or until Donna cohabited.
- Eric’s November 21, 2001 financial affidavit listed his pension value as $32,698.82 (the total contributions he had made as of April 21, 2001); an appendix to the pension plan defining actuarial benefit formulas was provided to Donna’s attorney in early 2002.
- In 2003 Donna began cohabiting; she proposed relinquishing her pension interest to obtain three additional years of alimony; Eric agreed and paid the extra alimony; in 2007 they filed a stipulation modifying the dissolution judgment to return the full pension to Eric, which the court approved after colloquy with Donna.
- Eric retired in 2007 on disability and later received annual pension payments (calculated under a different appendix section) substantially larger than the 2001 contribution figure.
- In 2011 (four years after the modification) Donna filed a motion to open the 2007 modification, alleging Eric committed fraud by understating the pension value in 2001; the trial court (Cutsumpas, J.) denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, finding Donna failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
- On appeal following remand from the Connecticut Supreme Court, the Appellate Court affirmed: Donna failed to prove (1) Eric knowingly misrepresented the pension’s value, and (2) she was substantially likely to obtain a different result had full actuarial value been disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eric) | Defendant's Argument (Donna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eric knowingly misrepresented pension value in 2001 (fraud by misrepresentation) | Eric argued the $32,698.82 figure reflected his understanding and belief of the pension value at the time | Donna argued Eric knew the contribution figure understated his vested actuarial pension and intentionally misrepresented it to induce a worse division | Court held Donna failed to prove Eric knew the number was inaccurate; trial court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Eric’s failure to disclose actuarial value constituted fraud by nondisclosure | Eric argued he had no duty to update beyond the final dissolution absent reactivation of duty; Donna initiated the exchange | Donna argued Eric had a continuing duty to disclose and should have filed an updated affidavit before the 2007 modification | Court held Donna failed to show Eric knew the contribution was inaccurate and had received adequate prior disclosure (appendix to attorney); no fraudulent nondisclosure proven |
| Whether Donna showed a substantial probability that full disclosure would have changed the 2007 modification outcome | Eric argued Donna proposed and accepted the deal for personal reasons (need for alimony to finish schooling), and judge would not necessarily have rejected stipulation | Donna argued a full valuation would have made the stipulation inequitable and Judge Resha likely would have denied it | Court held Donna did not show a substantial likelihood the outcome would differ; she received the bargained-for alimony and did not rely on the affidavit at the modification hearing |
| Whether the claim amounted to fraud on the court | Eric argued no bilateral concealment; only a unilateral allegedly fraudulent act was alleged | Donna suggested the conduct amounted to fraud on the court | Court held fraud-on-the-court doctrine inapplicable—requires both parties to conceal material information; no such evidence here |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671 (1999) (requirements for proving fraud to open dissolution judgments and duty to update disclosures)
- Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212 (1991) (full and frank disclosure principle and limitation of fraud-on-the-court in marital cases)
- Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783 (1995) (definition and valuation difficulties of vested pension benefits)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 183 Conn. 96 (1978) (actuarial valuation methods for present value of pension benefits)
- Zilka v. Zilka, 159 Conn. App. 167 (2015) (Section 52-212a four-month rule and fraud exception for opening judgments)
- Terry v. Terry, 102 Conn. App. 215 (2007) (burden to show knowledge in misrepresentation claims)