Mitchell v. Bogonos
| Decision Date | 07 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | AC 44980 |
| Parties | VERNAL MITCHELL, JR. v. IANINA BOGONOS |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Submitted on briefs September 21, 2022
Procedural History
Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the defendant filed a cross complaint thereafter, the defendant filed a prejudgment motion for contempt and for attorney's fees; subsequently, the matter was tried to the court, Truglia, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and granting certain other relief from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Luis A. Medina filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).
Elgo, Moll and Suarez, Js.
The defendant, Ianina Bogonos, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Vernal Mitchell, Jr. The defendant claims that the court (1) improperly refused to decide her motion for contempt and other pretrial motions, (2) erred in not finding the plaintiff in contempt and not awarding her attorney's fees,[1] (3) improperly permitted the plaintiff to decide that his comic book collection was not subject to distribution, (4) failed to impute income of $150,000 to the plaintiff, and (5) abused its discretion and exceeded its statutory authority in finding that the defendant committed fraud.[2] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, which were either found by the court or are otherwise undisputed, and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The parties were married on March 12, 2015, in Danbury. On August 3, 2020, the plaintiff, through counsel, filed a complaint,[3] together with a notice of automatic court orders,[4] seeking a dissolution of marriage and an equitable distribution of assets. On August 31,2020, the defendant filed a motion for alimony pendente lite in which she requested alimony and the return of an automobile.
On December 1, 2020, the court, D'Andrea, J., held a remote hearing on the defendant's pendente lite motion. At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff appeared in a self-represented capacity and had not filed a financial affidavit. The plaintiff informed the court that he was looking for an attorney and that he was not prepared to proceed on the motion. The court informed the plaintiff that he was in violation of the automatic orders due to his failure to provide the defendant with a financial affidavit. The court continued the matter to December 15, 2020, to permit the plaintiff either to hire an attorney or to proceed as a self-represented party. On December 1, 2020, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide the defendant with his tax returns for the previous five years on or before December 3, 2020, and a sworn written statement of his income, expenses, assets, and liabilities on or before December 8, 2020. On December 11, 2020, the defendant filed a motion seeking to find the plaintiff in contempt for failure to comply with the automatic orders and for failure to comply with the December 1, 2020 court orders.
On December 15, 2020, the plaintiff appeared with counsel for the continued pendente lite hearing. At the hearing, the plaintiffs counsel represented to the court that she had recently been retained by the plaintiff and that she was not prepared to proceed on the defendant's motion as there was outstanding discovery. Counsel also informed the court that the plaintiff had not filed tax returns for the past five years but was able to produce two years of unfiled tax return drafts. At the December 15, 2020 hearing, the parties agreed, and the court ordered, that the plaintiff was to "provide" the defendant with one automobile and to pay the defendant pendente lite alimony in the amount of $290 monthly. The matter was continued to January 15, 2021.
On January 15,2021, both parties appeared with counsel, and the court held a hearing at which the parties presented evidence on the defendant's motion for contempt. At the conclusion of evidence, the court reserved decision
On July 13, 2021, the court, Truglia, J., commenced a hearing on the underlying dissolution action, which continued for three nonconsecutive days. On August 23, 2021, the last day of evidence, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking a ruling from the court to have the plaintiff's comic book collection, which had not been previously disclosed to the defendant, appraised. The motion in limine further sought an order from the court to take into account an increase in the net worth of the plaintiff in accordance with the value of the comic book collection and to grant the defendant a share of its value. The court reserved decision on the motion in limine. In addition, on August 23, 2021, as a preliminary matter, the defendant informed the court that her motion for contempt was still pending. At the hearing on August 23,2021, the court allowed the defendant an opportunity to introduce evidence if she believed that the plaintiff was wilfully violating an outstanding court order and indicated that it would "issue appropriate orders in [its] final decision." The defendant then proceeded to put on evidence in support of her position that the plaintiff should be held in contempt.
On September 7, 2021, the court issued a memorandum of decision[5] in which it found that the parties married on March 12, 2015, and that their marriage had broken down irretrievably. The court further found that the plaintiff was fifty years old and was in good health, was self-employed as an information technology consultant and, in 2019, had an annual income of $30,000.[6] The court found that the defendant was born in Ukraine, first came to the United States in 2008 on a two year work visa, and worked as a babysitter. At the time of dissolution, the defendant was thirty-six years old and was in good health, had a bachelor's degree in hospitality, travel, and restaurant management, and was working as a housekeeper and a hostess at a restaurant, earning $17,400 in 2019. The court stated that "the defendant's claims . . . [were] based on three theories of recovery." First, that the plaintiff promised to assist her in obtaining legal residency in the United States or citizenship and that he failed to do so. Second, that he was abusive to her throughout their relationship, and third, that he earned more than $150,000 annually. The court did not find that the plaintiff "reneged on a 'promise' to assist her with her immigration application" but found "the plaintiffs explanation for the delay in filing the [application] credible." The court did not find the defendant's claims of abuse credible. Finally, the court found that the defendant did not present any compelling evidence from which it could conclude that the plaintiff had consistently earned more than $150,000 in each year of the marriage. The court ultimately found that the defendant was more responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.
After carefully considering every factor listed under General Statutes §§ 46b-81[7] and 46b-82,[8] the court ordered the marriage dissolved and issued its financial orders. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay alimony to the defendant in the amount of $500 monthly until March 1, 2023, either party's death, or the defendant's remarriage or cohabitation; ordered that each party retain his or her own personal property; awarded the plaintiff his comic book collection free and clear from any claim by the defendant; and ordered that each party was responsible for the debts listed in the respective financial affidavits. The court did not award attorney's fees to either party. In its decision, the court did not explicitly address the defendant's motion for contempt. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
First the defendant claims that the court improperly refused to decide her motion for contempt and other pretrial motions.[9] We are not persuaded.
As stated previously in this opinion, on December 11, 2020, the defendant, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-87, filed a motion asking the court to find the plaintiff in contempt for his failure to comply with certain aspects of the court's automatic orders (requiring the exchange of financial affidavits and requiring that neither party conceal any property) and for his failure to comply with the court's December 1, 2020 orders and to award attorney's fees to her. At a hearing on January 15, 2021, and at the August 23, 2021 hearing on the underlying dissolution action, the court permitted the defendant to present relevant evidence in support of her motion. At the January 15, 2021 hearing, the court stated that it would defer ruling on the motion. At the August 23, 2021 hearing, the court stated that, with respect to the contempt motion, it would issue any orders that it deemed to be appropriate in its final decision. In its final decision, the court neither expressly referred to the motion nor awarded the defendant attorney's fees.
The defendant argues that the court abused its discretion by refusing to address her motion for contempt. In support thereof, the defendant cites to our Supreme Court's decision in Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn 324, 915 A.2d 790 (2007). In Ramin, the trial court explicitly refused to address a pendente lite motion for contempt. Id., 330. Our Supreme Court stated, "[i]n summary, the court's comments reveal the...
To continue reading
Request your trial