If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony entitlement, 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.

Hartford divorce lawyer William Bruce Louden represents a Massachusetts woman seeking the estate plans of her Connecticut in-laws-discovery only Massachusetts allows. The parents are fighting for privacy in the state Supreme Court.

Allyn and Frances Seymour, of West Hartford, want to stay out of their son’s divorce so badly they’re fighting it to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Their son, Robert, of Marblehead, Mass., was sued for divorce by Lisa Repp Seymour two years ago. She wants a peek at her in-laws’ wills, trusts and financial plans in case they’re relevant to the divorce case.

In Massachusetts, it’s legal for a divorce court to depose members of the couple’s immediate families through a so-called Vaughn affidavit, named after the case that started the practice.

For reasons of their own-and reasons argued to the Connecticut Supreme Court on Sept. 27-the Seymours don’t want their daughter-in-law to get that information, which she couldn’t get if it were a Connecticut divorce.

They’ve invoked state and federal constitutional rights to privacy and due process. In this case of first impression, the Seymours are giving the high court a chance to define financial privacy rights.

Incredulous Chief

The divorcing wife, Lisa Repp Seymour, is represented in Connecticut by seasoned Hartford divorce pro William Bruce Louden, of the Louden Legal Group. He told the court it was a shame his client had to litigate so long-27 months-and still not get the three hours of depositions from her in-laws that judges in both states authorized.

Hartford solo David A. Curry, representing the parents, argued there had been a critical confusion by the daughter’s Massachusetts divorce lawyer. In an affidavit, Elisabeth Pelletier Jones, of Boston’s Witmer, Karp, Warner & Thuotte, said that the parents were “essentially represented” at the hearing. That was because the son’s lawyer, Paul P. Perocchi, was there. Perocchi, of Boston-based Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, countered with his own affidavit that emphasized he was not representing the parents, only the son.

Curry contended that the wife’s lawyer gave judges in both states the mistaken impression that the parents had legal representation and notice of the Bay State proceeding when their rights were being affected.

Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan, commenting from the bench, said he found it hard to believe that the parents didn’t get wind of the controversies in their son’s divorce case, and have actual notice, if not legal notice. If his son were going through a divorce, Sullivan said, he couldn’t imagine not talking with him about it.

During rebuttal, when Louden said the parents had actual notice, Sullivan flared up like a rocket: “I didn’t say that. I said I found it hard to believe they didn’t.”

Sullivan also sounded amazed by the underlying Massachusetts policy, allowing a divorcing spouse to consider the parents’ possible future bequests.

“A person could have a ne’er-do-well son, and a daughter-in-law they can’t stand, and be forced to support the daughter-in-law?” Sullivan asked.

In his brief, Curry defended the parents’ right to privacy in their financial matters, invoking Harvard constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe. Individuals retain a right to control certain personal information, and how they’re doing financially is an area they hold “intensely private,” Curry argued. “It is the role of the people, rather than the government, to choose which pieces of private information are to be published,” he contended.

Useless Data?

The deposition the wife seeks would not provide any meaningful information, for a number of reasons, including the fact the parents could write wills at any time, leaving everything or nothing to their son, Curry’s brief stated. It noted that they could also “spend a week at Foxwoods, or purchase and restore an old Italian villa.”

In any event, neither of the divorcing spouses are headed for imminent poverty, Curry pointed out, with a marital estate estimated at $11 million.

Whether the Seymour parents are richer or poorer remains private. They are retired, and have stated they have no wills, trusts or estate plans. Hartford Superior Court Judge John J. Caruso, who authorized the deposition on the condition that the file is sealed, said in his articulation that the couple is of “modest means.”

Louden argued that the parents have received all they asked for, since they requested either a protective order or, alternately, a sealing of the file. Curry said he argued later that his clients sought a protective order or to remand the case to Massachusetts.

Sealing would not be an adequate remedy, he told Sullivan, because the financial information in question-even if it isn’t public-could be used as the basis of a divorce order costly to the parents.

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: CT Law Tribune