Ostapowicz v. Wisniewski
| Decision Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 43944 |
| Citation | 210 Conn.App. 401,270 A.3d 145 |
| Parties | Halina OSTAPOWICZ v. Jerzy WISNIEWSKI |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Keith Yagaloff, South Windsor, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Kevin B. F. Emerson, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
Alexander, Clark and Sheldon, Js.
The plaintiff, Halina Ostapowicz, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Jerzy Wisniewski. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ premarital agreement, (2) erroneously found that certain property constituted the defendant's separate property under the premarital agreement and failed to assign a specific value to that property, and (3) abused its discretion in assigning to her the debt on the parties’ home equity line of credit. We agree with the plaintiff's third claim and, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, as found by the court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. The parties were married on August 21, 2006. Prior to their wedding, they both signed a premarital agreement (agreement). The plaintiff commenced the present action for dissolution of the marriage on October 20, 2017, alleging that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. On May 14, 2018, the defendant simultaneously filed an answer in which he alleged that the marriage should be annulled on the basis of fraud, a cross complaint,1 and a "notice" to which he attached the agreement. The court tried the case on several days between April 16 and July 19, 2019. The parties and the defendant's daughter, Alice Vautour, and his sister, Barbara Szczypinski, testified at trial.
Following the presentation of evidence and submission of posttrial briefs, the court issued a lengthy and comprehensive memorandum of decision on December 30, 2019. The court found that the plaintiff was fifty-two years old, in good health, and the mother of two adult children. She was born in Poland and came to the United States in 2004 on a tourist visa, but later secured a student visa and attended Central Connecticut State University. When she arrived in the United States, she worked as a private duty nurse. At the time of trial, she was working as a certified nurse's aide at the University of Connecticut Health Center. The plaintiff attained permanent resident status when she married the defendant; she became a United States citizen in 2014.
The defendant was seventy years old and in poor health. He, too, had been born in Poland and came to the United States with his parents when he was fourteen years old. He earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1974. He and his brother owned a machine shop that they sold in 1987. He later was employed by two other businesses. In 2013 and 2014, the defendant had quadruple bypass surgery and two venous thrombectomies
. He has difficulty walking and takes a dozen medications daily for his multiple health problems.
The court also found that, beginning fifty years ago with his parents, continuing with his brother and sister, and now with his children, the defendant and his family have pooled their money, resources, and labor to buy, maintain, and sell investment real estate. At one time, the family owned and maintained twelve investment properties. To further their business, the family has held various bank and investment accounts, each in the name of more than one member of the family. The court found that the family business is an informal venture, and through the generations, there have never been any contracts or written agreements between family members. Names were added to and removed from titles on properties as needed to further the growth of the business. Family members pool their money, putting in and taking out what is necessary, and working together to purchase, renovate, maintain, and sell properties. The court made detailed findings with respect to the family's business assets, both real property and monetary, and related transactions.
The court did not find it surprising that there were no contracts or written agreements between and among members of the defendant's family, stating:
With respect to the parties’ relationship, the court found that they had lived together for eleven months in the defendant's Fenwick Street apartment in Hartford before they married. The defendant helped the plaintiff obtain a student visa and eventually permanent residency. He also helped the plaintiff's daughter and son-in-law attain legal status. The court found that the parties had approximately nine years of a good marriage. In November, 2015, the defendant asked the plaintiff, for probate purposes, to sign an addendum to the agreement so that there would be contemporaneous documentation that the plaintiff would not make any claim against any of the properties or accounts the defendant acquired through his family business prior to or since the date of marriage. The court found the timing of the defendant's request significant, as it occurred shortly after he experienced serious health issues. The plaintiff refused to sign the addendum. Multiple events between 2015 and 2017 put a strain on the parties’ relationship, including the defendant's health issues and the death of the plaintiff's mother in Poland. The court found that disagreements and arguments over money and real estate ultimately led the plaintiff to file for divorce.
The court determined that neither party was primarily responsible for the end of the relationship. The court also concluded that the defendant had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff married him solely to attain legal status for herself and her family. The court thus found no fraud on the part of the plaintiff and that the parties’ marriage was valid.
With respect to the agreement, the court found that, when the defendant asked the plaintiff to sign the agreement, he made clear that his intention was to protect his interest in the family's business. He testified that he would not have married the plaintiff if she had not signed the agreement. At the time the agreement was drafted, the defendant showed the plaintiff bank and account statements regarding the family business.2 During the marriage, the statements were mailed to the marital home and, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had full access to and knowledge of the contents of the statements. The plaintiff also accompanied the defendant to the bank on several occasions.
The plaintiff testified that the defendant probably told her that he would not marry her if she did not sign the agreement. According to her, the defendant went through his financial affidavit and told her that most of the money was family money and the Fenwick Street apartment house where they were living was a family house. She acknowledged that the defendant and his family worked hard for their money and kept it together but claimed that the defendant never told her how much of the family money was his.
The defendant helped the plaintiff prepare her financial affidavit and explained the agreement to her in Polish. The plaintiff later met with Jacek I. Smigelski, a Polish-speaking attorney, to review the agreement; the defendant, who had separate counsel, was not present at the meeting. The plaintiff asked Smigelski a few questions about the agreement, which he answered. The defendant signed the agreement on July 5, 2006; the plaintiff signed it on July 7, 2006. The parties were married on August 21, 2006.
The court noted that General Statutes § 46b-36a et seq. governs premarital agreements. Under that act, a premarital contract is not enforceable under the following conditions: it was not signed voluntarily; it is unconscionable; a party was not provided fair and reasonable disclosure of the amount, character and value of property, financial obligations and income of the other party; or a party was not provided a reasonable opportunity to consult with independent counsel before signing it. General Statutes § 46b-36g.
The plaintiff acknowledged that both parties signed the agreement, and she did not claim that it is unconscionable. Instead, she claimed that the defendant did not tell her that the bank accounts he disclosed were co-owned by family members and that she did not have a meaningful opportunity to review the agreement with counsel.
The court rejected both claims. It noted that, although they were not required by statute to do so, the parties appended financial affidavits to the agreement. The defendant reviewed his financial affidavit with the plaintiff prior to the time she signed the agreement and explained to her that much of the money listed in that financial affidavit belonged to his family and that they had always held those assets together. The plaintiff also testified that, at the time she signed the agreement, she understood that she was giving up any future claim for family money in the event of a dissolution. "Given that background and crediting the defendant's testimony that, at the time of the drafting and prior to the signing of the agreement, he showed the plaintiff all of the bank and account statements regarding his family money and business (which bank accounts contained other family members’ names as well as the defendant's)," the court found that the defendant provided the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lavette v. Stanley Black Decker, Inc.
...270 A.3d 213 (2022) ; and was raised for the first time to this court in the plaintiff's reply brief. See Ostapowicz v. Wisniewski , 210 Conn. App. 401, 413–14 n.9, 270 A.3d 145 (2022) (declining to review claim raised for first time in reply brief). Additionally, as an intermediate appella......