Mattson v. Mattson
Decision Date | 24 December 2002 |
Docket Number | (AC 22082) |
Citation | 811 A.2d 256,74 Conn. App. 242 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | MARY MATTSON v. JEFFREY C. MATTSON. |
Thomas W. Beecher filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).
Michael R. Kaufman and Marvin Borofsky filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).
The defendant, Jeffrey C. Mattson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. In his motion to open, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff, Mary Mattson, fraudulently misrepresented certain information on the financial affidavit that she submitted at the time of the dissolution. On appeal, he claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his motion because he presented evidence of fraud sufficient to open the judgment and (2) improperly disallowed him from conducting discovery prior to the hearing on the motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to the resolution of the defendant's appeal. The parties, who were married in 1985, obtained a judgment of dissolution on March 3, 1999. Incorporated in the judgment was their separation agreement, which the they had prepared with the assistance of a mediator. The parties met with the mediator several times commencing in October, 1998. The agreement and the financial affidavits underpinning it were signed and dated February 12, 1999. On June 15, 2000, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment on the ground of alleged fraud by the plaintiff.1 On April 18, 2001, the defendant filed a revised motion to open the judgment of dissolution in which he alleged that the plaintiff, on her February 12, 1999 financial affidavit, had overstated her tax and credit card liabilities, and understated the value of her stock and stock options.2 The court held a hearing on the motion on June 4, 2001, at which the parties presented evidence and testimony.3 Thereafter, the court denied the defendant's motion, stating that "there has been no evidence presented to the court to indicate that [the plaintiff] made a statement . . . that she knew was untrue, and that it was made at the time of her signing of her financial affidavit." This appeal followed.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pospisil v. Pospisil, 59 Conn. App. 446, 449, 757 A.2d 655, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 940, 761 A.2d 762 (2000). (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 217-18, 595 A.2d 1377 (1991). A court's determinations as to the elements of fraud are findings of fact that we will not disturb unless they are clearly erroneous. Anastasia v. Beautiful You Hair Designs, Inc., 61 Conn. App. 471, 478, 767 A.2d 118 (2001).
There are three limitations on a court's ability to grant relief from a dissolution judgment secured by fraud: (Emphasis added.) Pospisil v. Pospisil, supra, 59 Conn. App. 450.
The defendant first claims that the plaintiff's listing on her February 12, 1999 affidavit of two credit card debts totaling $35,000 was fraudulent because she paid those debts in full in January, 1999, and failed to amend the affidavit, which was prepared by the mediator on the basis of information that previously had been provided. Because the payments necessarily caused corresponding reductions in her assets, we agree with the court that the plaintiff's satisfaction of those obligations was inconsequential. Additionally, the undisputed evidence was that the plaintiff had made the payments via a joint checking account of which the defendant necessarily was aware. Furthermore, the defendant presented no evidence other than his assertion to demonstrate that the plaintiff had paid her bills with the intent of deceiving him and that he had relied to his detriment on the assumption that they remained outstanding. The court was entitled to reject his testimony as not credible.
The defendant also claims that the plaintiff's listing of an estimated $80,000 tax liability for two bonuses she had received from her employer was fraudulent because the actual amount due later turned out to be only $40,000. At the hearing, the plaintiff testified that the estimate was provided by the parties' joint accountant and that the defendant was present when she solicited that estimate. There was no evidence that the plaintiff, at the time she signed her financial affidavit, knew her tax liabilities to be other than what was represented therein. To the contrary, the defendant conceded that it was a good faith estimate that the plaintiff did not know to be untrue. The court apparently relied on both parties' testimony, and we will not revisit its credibility determinations. See Cadle Co. v. Errato, 71 Conn. App. 447, 459, 802 A.2d 887, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 918, 812 A.2d 861 (2002). The defendant last claims that the plaintiff fraudulently underestimated the value of her stock and stock options. At the hearing, the plaintiff testified that the cumulative gross value of those assets, based on the most current information available during the preparation of her affidavit, was $379,000, and that after consulting with the defendant, she listed them on the affidavit, net of tax, at $255,000. The defendant offered no evidence to the contrary and made no argument that the figure was inaccurate or that an alternate figure should have been used. Although he now claims, in a conclusory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weinstein v. Weinstein
...that the result of the new trial will be different." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mattson v. Mattson, 74 Conn. App. 242, 244-46, 811 A.2d 256 (2002). Because there is no claim of undue delay in the present case, we limit our consideration to whether there was suffi......
-
Bruno v. Bruno
...can be opened on the basis of fraud beyond the four month period normally allowed for opening a judgment. See Mattson v. Mattson, 74 Conn.App. 242, 243 n. 1, 811 A.2d 256 (2002) (“[a]lthough the motion to open the judgment was filed more than four months from the date of dissolution ... the......
-
Duplissie v. Devino
...the amount of damages to award the plaintiff. We will not revisit the court's credibility determinations. See Mattson v. Mattson, 74 Conn.App. 242, 246, 811 A.2d 256 (2002). The court, therefore, did not abuse its The judgment is affirmed. In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1. Buil......
-
Zilkha v. Zilkha
...(1991); Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590, 595, 976 A.2d 69, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918, 984 A.2d 68 (2009); Mattson v. Mattson, 74 Conn. App. 242, 245, 811 A.2d 256 (2002). We conclude that the court lacked authority to order distributions from the escrow account to pay the attorney fo......