Ostapowicz v. Wisniewski

• Docket Number: AC 45889
• Decision Date: 19 December 2023
• Parties: HALINA OSTAPOWICZ v. JERZY WISNIEWSKI
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

1

HALINA OSTAPOWICZ
v.
JERZY WISNIEWSKI

No. AC 45889

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

December 19, 2023

Argued September 19, 2023

Procedural History

Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, where the defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Caron, J.; judgment dismissing the counterclaim, dissolving the marriage and granting certain other relief in accordance with the parties' premarital agreement, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court, Alexander, Clark and Sheldon, Js., which reversed in part the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings; subsequently, the court, Caron, J., issued an order clarifying a provision of the dissolution judgment, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.

Affirmed.

2

Keith Yagaloff, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Kevin B. F. Emerson, for the appellee (defendant).

Prescott, Cradle and Suarez, Js. ^[*]

3

OPINION

PRESCOTT, J.

This marital dissolution matter returns to us following our decision in Ostapowicz v. Wisniewski, 210 Conn.App. 401, 270 A.3d 145 (2022). In the prior appeal, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court only as to an order that the plaintiff, Halina Ostapowicz, was solely responsible for the debt on the parties' home equity line of credit and remanded the case to the trial court to resolve a purported inconsistency between that order and an order regarding attorney's fees. Id., 420. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered on remand, claiming that the court exceeded the scope of this court's remand order in Ostapowicz. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history, as set forth in Ostapowicz, are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant, Jerzy Wisniewski, were married on August 21, 2006. Id., 402. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant on October 20,2017, seeking a dissolution of the parties' marriage. Id. On December 30, 2019, following trial, the court issued a memorandum of decision dissolving the marriage on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown and entering certain financial orders. Id., 403, 409. In its decision, "the court ordered, among other things, that the parties are responsible for their respective health insurance and unreimbursed medical expenses; neither party shall receive alimony; the defendant shall quitclaim the marital home to the plaintiff, who 'shall be solely responsible for payment of the [home equity line of credit],' taxes, insurance and maintenance; the plaintiff has no interest in the defendant's family business; the parties shall retain their respective bank and retirement accounts and pay their respective debts; the defendant shall retain his rights in the family business; the parties shall retain their respective automobiles; and '[e]ach party shall be solely responsible for payment of their respective attorney's fees incurred during the course of this case! " (Emphasis in original.) Id., 409.

The plaintiff appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court, arguing, in part, that the trial court had abused its discretion in assigning to her the entire outstanding debt on the parties' home equity line of credit.^[1] Id., 418. Specifically, she argued that "the court's order regarding the home equity line of credit conflicted] with its order that the parties [were] responsible for the payment of their respective attorney's fees." Id., 419-20. In addressing this claim, this court set forth the following additional relevant facts. "In December, 2015, the parties obtained a home equity line of credit and used some of the funds to pay off the plaintiff's personal line of credit, totaling $24,271. The parties also drew on the line of credit for their respective attorney's fees in this dissolution matter. The court specifically

4

found that the defendant borrowed $10,000 under this line of credit to pay his own attorney's fees in this matter but also ordered, among other things, that the 'plaintiff shall be solely responsible for payment of the [home equity line of credit],' and that '[e]ach party shall be solely responsible for payment of their respective attorney's fees incurred during the course of this case.'" (Footnote omitted.) Id., 419.

This court agreed with the plaintiff that the court's order regarding the home equity line of credit appeared to conflict with the court's order that the parties be responsible for the payment of their respective attorney's fees. Id., 419-20. This court, therefore, "reverse[d] the judgment only with regard to the order that the plaintiff is solely responsible for the debt on the home equity line of credit and remand[ed] the case with direction to resolve the...