Case Details
In Gershman, the parties were married for approximately twenty years and were the parents of three minor children. With respect to the wife’s claim that the husband dissipated assets, the lower court found that in 2002, the husband invested $105,000 in a series of partnerships, which at the time of trial were only valued at $31,074. The court further found that during the marriage, the parties agreed to spend approximately $500,000 to build a new home; however, unbeknownst to the wife, the husband ended up spending well over $900,000.
In entering its orders, the trial court explained that the defendant had made a bad investment decision with respect to the aforementioned partnerships and that he was responsible for the cost overruns for the parties’ new home, causing them to lose $200,000 when it was sold. The court ultimately stated that, “The matter of the dissipation of family assets ha[d] been taken into consideration in the overall asset division.”
The Appeal
The husband appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly concluded that he had dissipated family assets. In reviewing the law of several other jurisdictions, the Connecticut Supreme Court explained that a poor investment decision or the use of marital assets to purchase marital property alone does not constitute dissipation. Rather, courts generally require that a marital asset be used for a non-marital purpose. Some courts have concluded that dissipation only occurs where a spouse acts in bad faith with an intent to deprive the other spouse of marital assets.
In such cases, there must be some evidence of willful misconduct, bad faith, or an intention to dissipate marital assets before a court may alter the equitable distribution award. Taking those general concepts into consideration, and ultimately ruling in the husband’s favor, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that, “at a minimum, dissipation in the marital dissolution context requires financial misconduct involving marital assets, such as intentional waste or a selfish financial impropriety, coupled with a purpose unrelated to the marriage.” Gershman at 351.
Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.
Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well.
If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.
