Friezo v. Friezo, 17456.
Decision Date | 06 February 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 17456.,17456. |
Citation | 914 A.2d 533,281 Conn. 166 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Victoria Wood FRIEZO v. David FRIEZO. |
Wesley W. Horton, with whom were Kenneth J. Bartschi and, on the brief, Brendon P. Levesque, Hartford, Edward Nusbaum, Westport, Ronald W. Crawley, certified legal intern, and Clarisse N. Thomas, certified legal intern, for the appellant (defendant).
Gary I. Cohen, Greenwich, for the appellee (plaintiff).
SULLIVAN, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.1
The defendant, David Friezo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court2 dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Victoria Wood Friezo, and issuing certain financial orders following a determination that the parties' prenuptial agreement was unenforceable. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) concluded that the parties' prenuptial agreement was unenforceable; (2) presumed that the parties were entitled to an equal distribution of the marital property; (3) included in the defendant's income $3,846,029 in management fees and $4,922,645 in performance fees associated with the defendant's interest in certain hedge funds when no such income existed; (4) concluded that the defendant's testimony lacked credibility; and (5) awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in attorney's fees even though she received a substantial lump sum property award. We conclude that the prenuptial agreement was enforceable and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court made the following specific findings and conclusions. The plaintiff, a citizen of the United Kingdom with a high school education, began working in London, England, for Bankers Trust as a trader's assistant and personal aide in 1994. "The plaintiff worked under the direction of the defendant3 . . . [and][t]he parties began dating within one week of the plaintiff's new employment. Six or eight weeks later, the parties became sexually intimate. The plaintiff moved out of her mother's house two weeks later to live with the defendant in his . . . apartment. . . . The parties maintained their finances separately. The defendant paid the shelter costs but did not provide any cash, credit card or bank account access to the plaintiff. . . . The plaintiff paid her own expenses. Prior to their marriage, the parties never had any conversation about the defendant's income or assets. The plaintiff never inquired; the defendant never offered any information.4
The record also reveals the following undisputed facts. The draft agreement consisted of nineteen articles. Article one, entitled "Acknowledgment of Present Situation: Changes in Circumstances," included the following language: "Each party acknowledges for himself or herself that both parties have substantial assets and that each would be able to adequately support himself or herself." Articles ten and eleven, entitled "Husband's Representations"8 and "Wife's Representations,"9 respectively, contained nearly identical language describing each party's assets and liabilities by reference to schedules A and B, and each party's gross income in 1997, although the spaces provided for the statements of income were not filled in. Articles ten and eleven further provided that each party acknowledged that he or she had examined the assets and liabilities set forth in the schedule of the other party and clearly understood and consented to all of the agreement's terms. See footnotes 8 and 9 of this opinion. Schedules A and B were attached to the draft agreement but, as in the case of the parties' incomes, had not yet been filled in.
The plaintiff read the draft agreement over the weekend of November 7 and 8, and made handwritten notes on seven of its twenty-one pages. The notes suggested that she had read the agreement carefully.10 Among the words that she underlined in article six, which concerned waiver and release of her future rights and claims against the defendant,11 were "waives," "releases," "rights," "claims," "alimony" and "maintenance. . . ." The plaintiff also completed schedule B, noting that she had no liabilities and that her assets consisted of a "checking account" valued at $4000, a "savings account" valued at $11,000, "shares" valued at $4000, and an "endowment" valued at $3000, for a total asset value of $22,000. The plaintiff made no notations or marks on the draft agreement indicating that she had any questions or concerns regarding article ten, article eleven or schedule A.
When the defendant handed the draft agreement to the plaintiff on November 5, he also told her that his sister-in-law, Attorney Kristen A. Friezo, could recommend an attorney with whom the plaintiff might wish to consult. The plaintiff, who was on good terms with Kristen Friezo, made an appointment to go to her New York City law firm on Tuesday, November 10.12 Upon the plaintiff's arrival for her appointment, Kristen Friezo introduced her to another associate in the law firm, Attorney Eamonn F. Foley.
Foley first asked the plaintiff to sign a conflict of interest waiver, which she did. The two then met for approximately one-half hour. Because Foley already had a copy of the draft, the plaintiff did not show him her copy.13 When Foley asked the plaintiff if she had any questions, she posed the questions that had come to mind during her weekend review of the draft. Foley stated that her points were well taken and that he would look into them. During the consultation, Foley also made notes on his own copy of the draft and asked the plaintiff to provide him with a list of her assets.
According to the plaintiff, Foley did not show or discuss with her a facsimile copy of the defendant's assets and liabilities that the defendant's attorney had sent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Of Conn. v. Courchesne, No. 17174.
...and common law principles governing the same general subject matter....” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166, 181-82, 914 A.2d 533 (2007). “Because statutory interpretation is a question of law, our review is de novo.” (Internal quotation marks State v. Orr, ......
-
Borelli v. Renaldi
...sister state precedent considering emergency vehicle statutes that are based on the uniform law. See, e.g., Friezo v. Friezo , 281 Conn. 166, 187–88, 914 A.2d 533 (2007). The most comprehensive and persuasive analysis that my research has revealed is Justice Reif's dissent from the Oklahoma......
-
Hornung v. Hornung
... is a mixed question of fact and law, and, therefore, this court's review of such determination is plenary. E.g., Friezo v. Friezo , 281 Conn. 166, 180, 914 A.2d 533 (2007). Thus, I must decide whether the trial court's “conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the ......
-
Reville v. Reville
...an undisclosed resource should have been disclosed by the defendant. Id., at 686–88, 882 A.2d 53; see also Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166, 181–83, 191–93, 914 A.2d 533 (2007). The majority does not put the cart before the horse but, rather, forgets the horse entirely. Only if it had been u......