Segal v. Segal, No. 24661
| Decision Date | 28 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 24661, No. 22567. |
| Citation | 863 A.2d 221,86 Conn.App. 617 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Moey SEGAL v. Leonor Midvidy SEGAL. Leonor Midvidy Segal v. Moey Segal et al. |
William C. Franklin, Litchfield, for the appellant in the first case (plaintiff Moey Segal).
Brian McCormick, Torrington, with whom, on the brief, was James J. Bonsignore, for the appellee in the first case (defendant Leonor Midvidy Segal).
Gwen P. Weisberg, with whom, on the brief, was Julie A. Morgan, Hartford, for the appellant in the second case (plaintiff Leonor Midvidy Segal).
Philip Miller, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan Cobb Quinn, assistant attorney general, for the appellee in the second case (defendant Brian J. Murphy).
FOTI, BISHOP and PETERS, Js.
These cases involve the enforceability of a Nevada District Court judgment that has been domesticated in this state by a filing that complies with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, General Statutes §§ 52-604 et seq.1 The judgment debtor has raised three issues. He maintains that enforcement of this judgment in this state is improper because (1) the foreign judgment has been modified in the foreign jurisdiction, (2) the foreign judgment creditor seeks funds arising out of a partition action without first having obtained a postjudgment lien on the partition property and (3) he has been foreclosed from raising substantive defenses to the foreign judgment. The trial court, resolving each of these issues in favor of the judgment creditor, rendered a judgment in her favor. We affirm that judgment.
The parties to this dispute are not newcomers to our judicial system. In Segal v. Segal, 264 Conn. 498, 823 A.2d 1208 (2003), our Supreme Court reviewed the merits of a partition action brought by the plaintiff, Moey Segal (a.k.a. Moses Segal) (former husband) against the defendant, Leonor Midvidy Segal (former wife). It held that the former wife, who had properly domesticated a foreign judgment in this state, could enforce that judgment, even though the foreign judgment was then on appeal, because the former husband had not filed the security bond required by General Statutes § 52-606( a)2 and Nev. R. Civ. P. 62.3 Segal v. Segal, supra, at 506-507, 823 A.2d 1208.
Following the remand ordered by our Supreme Court, the parties pursued two separate causes of action. In a continuation of the partition action filed by the former husband on August 18, 1995, he raised new defenses to the enforcement of the Nevada judgment. The trial court, Brunetti, J., rejected these defenses and concluded that the Nevada judgment entitled the former wife to all of the proceeds of the partition sale. The former husband has appealed (AC 24661). In a continuation of an independent interpleader action filed by the former wife on May 11, 2001, she sought a court order directing the court clerk, as custodian of the partition proceeds, to pay these proceeds to her. The trial court, Cremins, J., concluded that, because of sovereign immunity, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an interpleader action against a court clerk. The former wife has appealed (AC 22567).
Although these cases were not consolidated, either at trial or in this court, we address them jointly in this opinion. At oral argument in this court, the parties agreed that, if we affirm the judgment in the partition action (AC 24661), the interpleader action (AC 22567) would become moot.
Accordingly, we begin our analysis of the parties' claims by addressing the merits of the former husband's contention that Judge Brunetti improperly awarded all of the proceeds of the partition sale to the former wife. In his appeal, the former husband renews the three issues that, in his view, were decided improperly by the trial court. In his first argument, he maintains that the domesticated Nevada judgment became unenforceable as a result of the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court modifying the domesticated judgment of its trial court. His second argument is that the domesticated Nevada judgment was not enforceable directly in a partition proceeding in this state without a postjudgment lien on the partition property. Finally, in his third argument, he contends that the domesticated judgment was not enforceable because he had been deprived of an opportunity to be heard on his defenses to that judgment. We disagree with each of these claims.
Each of the issues raised by the former husband involves a question of law. Our review of their merits, therefore, is plenary. Grabowski v. Bristol, 64 Conn.App. 448, 452, 780 A.2d 953 (2001).
The facts with respect to the domesticated Nevada judgment and the Connecticut partition action are undisputed. Because the interaction between these two judicial proceedings is complex and intertwined, we start out with a detailed description of their history.
The former spouses, during their marriage, acquired the property in Goshen that is the subject of the partition action. In 1988, the Nevada District Court dissolved their marriage. The dissolution decree enforced two postnuptial agreements in which the former husband obligated himself to pay alimony to the former wife and to pay all taxes, utilities and general maintenance fees on the jointly owned property in Goshen.
In 1992, the former husband stopped making these payments, allegedly because of a custody dispute. In response, the former wife brought an action in Nevada to obtain the alimony to which she allegedly was entitled. On August 7, 1998, the Nevada District Court rendered a two part judgment in her favor. It awarded her $2.7 million in alimony arrearages. It also ordered the former husband to provide security for the payment of this judgment by way of a trust fund or an annuity. On September 16, 1998, promptly after the rendition of the judgment of the Nevada District Court, the former wife domesticated the judgment of the District Court in this state in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, General Statutes §§ 52-604 et seq.
On August 18, 1995, during the pendency of the Nevada litigation, the former husband brought the present action in this state for partition of the Goshen property. At his request, trial of the partition action was postponed until July 27, 1998. On September 15, 1998, the trial court, DiPentima, J., rendered judgment for partition of the Goshen property by an auction to be held on October 31, 1998. This judgment was rendered one day before the former wife's domestication of her Nevada judgment.
Also on September 16, 1998, the former wife filed a judgment lien on the Goshen property in order to enforce her domesticated judgment. She filed a notice of the lien on October 16, 1998. The former husband objected to the filing of this lien,4 and Judge DiPentima ordered its immediate release. In the court's view, enforcing the judgment lien would have required the opening of the judgment of sale and the scheduling of a new sale date.
In the court's subsequent distribution of the proceeds of the partition sale, Judge DiPentima awarded the former husband $159,422.58 and the former wife $336,988.96. The court based this uneven distribution on the fact that the former wife had been obligated to pay maintenance costs and taxes on the Goshen property. The postnuptial agreements had assigned this responsibility to the former husband. For two reasons, however, the court declined to enforce the Nevada judgment as a legitimate claim to all of the proceeds. It concluded that enforcing the domesticated Nevada judgment would be premature because the judgment was then on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court and that it would be burdensome because the parties continued to disagree about the proper disposition of their assets after the dissolution of their marriage.
Both spouses appealed from the judgment of the trial court. This court, unaware of the August 9, 2001 decision of the Nevada Supreme Court, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Segal v. Segal, 65 Conn.App. 17, 25, 781 A.2d 492 (2001). The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the order of its District Court with respect to the posting of security, but it affirmed the monetary judgment in favor of the former wife.5
Our Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court. Segal v. Segal, supra, 264 Conn. at 509, 823 A.2d 1208. The court held that the domestication of the Nevada judgment was effective even though it had been appealed.6 The court's conclusion was based on the fact that, in violation of § 52-606(a), the former husband had failed to file a surety bond pending the outcome of his appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Id., at 506-507, 823 A.2d 1208. Although informed of the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court,7 our Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Id., at 509, 823 A.2d 1208.
At the remand proceedings before Judge Brunetti, that court considered the merits of the argument of the former husband that the statutes concerning foreign judgments require further filing of a foreign judgment whenever that judgment has been modified in the foreign state. In light of the fact that the Nevada Supreme Court expressly had affirmed the monetary award in favor of the former wife, the court held that the former wife's domestication of the Nevada judgment continued to be effective.
In this appeal, the former husband reiterates his claim that the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court required further domestication of the judgment of the Nevada District Court in this state. At this juncture, he cannot and does not deny that the judgment of the Nevada District Court initially had been properly domesticated in this state because initially it had been filed in accordance with the requirements of General Statutes § 52-605.8 Nonetheless, in his view,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavanagh v. Richichi
...applied the law and could reasonably have reached the conclusion that it did." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Segal v. Segal , 86 Conn. App. 617, 630, 863 A.2d 221 (2004).In Connecticut, the right to partition has long been recognized as absolute. See Fernandes v. Rodriguez , 255 Conn.......
-
Culhane v. Culhane, Civil Action No. 3:11–CV–1799 (HBF).
...the discretion of the trial court.’ ” DiCerto v. Jones, 108 Conn.App. 184, 188 n. 3, 947 A.2d 409 (App.Ct.2008) (quoting Segal v. Segal, 86 Conn.App. 617, 630, 863 A.2d 221 (App.Ct.2004)). Similarly, the accounting statute invoked by plaintiff encompasses a complete array of equitable princ......
-
Oehler v. Olson, No. CV-03-0083327 (CT 2/28/2005)
...give extraterritorial effect to the New Jersey statute. The court must turn to federal law to decide this issue. Segal v. Segal, 86 Conn.App. 617, 639 n.21, 863 A.2d 221 (2004). In deciding issues of extraterritorial effects of statutes under the full faith and credit clause, the United Sta......
-
Tadros v. Tripodi
...there is no concern with interference with governmental functions or the imposition of any fiscal burdens on the state. In Segal v. Segal, 86 Conn. App. 617, 637, A.2d (2004), this court recently affirmed the order of the trial court directing the court clerk to pay to a party the proceeds ......
-
2005 Connecticut Appellate Review
...App. 251, 873 A.2d 1009, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 907, 882 A.2d 668 (2005). 147 Id. at 258-59. 148 257 Conn. 1,776 A.2d 1115 (2001). 149 86 Conn. App. 617, 863 A.2d 221 (2004). 150 87 Conn. App. 367, 865 A.2d 464, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 918, 871 A.2d 370 (2005). 151 89 Conn. App. 709, 874 A......