Reinke v. Sing
Citation | 328 Conn. 376,179 A.3d 769 |
Decision Date | 13 March 2018 |
Docket Number | SC 19687 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Gail REINKE v. Walter SING |
Eric M. Higgins, with whom, on the brief, was Leonard M. Braman, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Reine C. Boyer, for the appellee (defendant).
Livia D. Barndollar filed a brief for the Connecticut Bar Association as amicus curiae.
Campbell D. Barrett, Jon T. Kukucka and Johanna S. Katz filed a brief for the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers as amicus curiae.
Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Robinson, D'Auria and Espinosa, Js.*
Under General Statutes § 46b–86(a),1 unless a dissolution decree provides otherwise, the trial court may at any time modify any final order for the periodic payment of alimony upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party, but may not modify any assignment of the estate or a portion thereof of one party to the other party. In this certified appeal, the plaintiff, Gail Reinke, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's decision to modify the property distribution orders in a prior judgment dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Walter Sing. The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that, under § 46b–86 (a), in the absence of a finding of fraud, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the prior judgment. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.2
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "The parties were married in 1989 and had two children. The plaintiff [holds] a bachelor's degree and previously had been employed in a number of well paying jobs. During the marriage, she became a homemaker; she also worked part-time ‘from time to time.’ The defendant [holds] a degree in mathematics, and he worked throughout the marriage, most recently as a self-employed consultant.
(Footnote omitted.) Reinke v. Sing , 162 Conn. App. 674, 675–76, 133 A.3d 501 (2016).
The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which, sua sponte, Id., at 677, 133 A.3d 501.
In light of the trial court's articulation, the Appellate Court then "requested the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the question of whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to open the judgment in the absence of a finding of fraud." Id. In answering that question, the Appellate Court "directed the parties' attention to Sousa v. Sousa , 157 Conn. App. 587, 116 A.3d 865 [ (2015), rev'd, 322 Conn. 757, 143 A.3d 578 (2016) ]," in which the court noted that § 46b–86(a)"deprives the Superior Court of continuing jurisdiction over that portion of a dissolution judgment providing for the assignment of property of one party to the other party ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 595–96, 116 A.3d 865.
The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, explaining that, during the pendency of the appeal, the court decided Forgione v. Forgione , 162 Conn. App. 1, 6–8, 129 A.3d 766 (2015), cert. denied, 320 Conn. 920, 132 A.3d 1094 (2016), a case directly on point that held that, "in the absence of a finding or concession of fraud, the trial court lack[s] subject matter jurisdiction to open a dissolution judgment, at least as to the division of the parties' marital assets, despite an agreement by the parties to permit the trial court to do so."3 Reinke v. Sing , supra, 162 Conn. App. at 677, 133 A.3d 501. In light of its determination that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the judgment and to enter the modification order without a finding of fraud, the Appellate Court declined to reach the merits of the plaintiff's claims on appeal. See id., at 677–78, 133 A.3d 501. We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether "the Appellate Court correctly determine[d] that, in the absence of a finding of fraud, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the parties' judgment of dissolution of their marriage." Reinke v. Sing , 321 Conn. 911, 912, 136 A.3d 644 (2016). We now reverse the Appellate Court's judgment.4
A determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law over which we exercise plenary review. See, e.g., Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque , 267 Conn. 116, 127–28, 836 A.2d 414 (2003). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sousa v. Sousa , 322 Conn. 757, 770, 143 A.3d 578 (2016). In determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, however, we indulge every presumption in favor of jurisdiction. E.g., Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Costle , 179 Conn. 415, 421 n.3, 426 A.2d 1324 (1980).
In concluding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the dissolution judgment, the Appellate Court relied on Forgione ; see Reinke v. Sing , supra, 162 Conn. App. at 677, 133 A.3d 501 ; which, in turn, relied on Sousa v. Sousa , supra, 157 Conn. App. 587, 116 A.3d 865 ; see Forgione v. Forgione , supra, 162 Conn. App. at 6–8, 129 A.3d 766 ; in which the Appellate Court determined that § 46b–86(a) deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to modify, by stipulation of the parties, a property distribution order contained in a prior judgment of dissolution. See Sousa v. Sousa , supra, 157 Conn. App. at 595–96, 116 A.3d 865. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, we conclude that Sousa v. Sousa , 157 Conn. App. 587, 116 A.3d 865, was wrongly decided. We further conclude that General Statutes § 52–212a5 authorized the trial court in the present case to open the dissolution judgment in accordance with the parties' agreement. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Court's judgment and remand the case to that court for consideration of the merits of the plaintiff's claims.
To fully understand the Appellate Court's error in the present case, it is necessary to examine that court's decision in Sousa . In Sousa , the parties were divorced in 2001, and, pursuant to the parties' separation agreement, the husband's pension was divided equally between the parties. Sousa v. Sousa , supra, 157 Conn. App. at 590, 116 A.3d 865. The husband was required to pay periodic alimony of $130 per week, "subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [wife's] cohabitation or the death of either party." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 591, 116 A.3d 865.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Callahan v. Callahan
...marriage had been dissolved, such proceeds would not be marital property distributable under § 46b-81. See Reinke v. Sing , 328 Conn. 376, 381 n.3, 179 A.3d 769 (2018) ("[t]he purpose of a property division pursuant to a dissolution proceeding is to unscramble existing marital property in o......
-
Wolfork v. Yale Med. Grp.
...796. Accordingly, the defendants’ appeal properly was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Id. ; see also Reinke v. Sing , 328 Conn. 376, 390–91, 179 A.3d 769 (2018) (distinguishing between trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and its statutory authority to open and modify dis......
-
Everhart v. Merrick Mfg. II LLC
...jurisdiction is resolved in favor of entertaining the action." Angersola, 330 Conn. at 267, 193 A.3d 520, quoting Reinke v. Sing , 328 Conn. 376, 389, 179 A.3d 769 (2018).{¶ 64} Ultimately, the court applied the doctrine of "legislative acquiescence" and decided there was no reason reconsid......
-
Reinke v. Sing
...Appellate Court on remand from our Supreme Court for resolution of the claims raised by the plaintiff, Gail Reinke. Reinke v. Sing , 328 Conn. 376, 179 A.3d 769 (2018).1 The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court after it reissued several financial orders that were part of a......