Post-Dissolution Judgment Reversed Despite Misconduct
by
Joseph C. Maya on May. 05, 2017
Divorce & Family Law Business Business Business Organization
Summary: Blog post about a post-dissolution judgment regarding the former couple's finances after misconduct was discovered.
If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
A trial court exceeded its scope in opening a dissolution judgment, because such powers must be exercised at the time it renders judgment, and the defendant’s post-dissolution misconduct did not qualify for any legal exception.
The parties were married in 1987, and had three children, all of whom were adults at the time of trial. After the birth of the parties’ third child, the plaintiff wife stopped working outside the home and remained a full-time homemaker until 1994. In 1995, the parties decided to start their own business, and created three companies. The plaintiff owns 51% of each of the three companies, with the defendant husband holding the remaining share of 49%. The plaintiff resigned from her position in 2009, concurrent with the parties’ action for separation. During the dissolution proceedings, the companies were valued at no less than $11,747,669. The plaintiff made a single withdrawal of 157,440 before judgment was rendered. On May 8, 2012, the court granted dissolution and adopted the valuation of the companies made during the proceeding. The court ordered the plaintiff to transfer all interest in the companies to the defendant for a sum of $6 million. The plaintiff thereafter made multiple withdrawals from the company that totaled $632,772.81. In response, the defendant moved to reopen the dissolution judgment to enter new financial orders in response to the defendant’s misconduct.
The Appellate Court found that the trial court acted outside its authority in making such modifications. In the case at hand, the trial court granted the reopening in response to the defendant’s improper withdrawal of company funds. A court may only reopen and/or modify a dissolution judgment were a substantial change in circumstances has been established concerning parties’ ability to provide for their financial needs. No such circumstance was introduced for justification of the defendant’s motion. The court remanded the court with directions to reinstate the initial May 2012 financial orders.
For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.
Source: Callahan v. Callahan, 116 A.3d 317; Conn. App. LEXIS 161 (2015)
