Sunbury v. Sunbury
| Citation | 583 A.2d 636,216 Conn. 673 |
| Decision Date | 25 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 13933,13933 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Carol A. SUNBURY v. Donald C. SUNBURY. |
Zbigniew S. Rozbicki, Torrington, for appellant (plaintiff).
Sherman M. Tonkonow, Meriden, for appellee (defendant).
Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS and COVELLO, JJ.
This is an action for the dissolution of a marriage. The dispositive issue is whether, after an order of remand, the trial court correctly valued the parties' assets as of the date of the original dissolution as opposed to the date of the subsequent rehearing. We conclude that the trial court correctly valued the parties' assets as of the date of the dissolution and accordingly, affirm the trial court's judgment.
The procedural history of the matter is as follows: On December 5, 1985, the trial court, Gaffney, J., rendered judgment dissolving the parties' twenty-seven year marriage. As an incident to the decree, the trial court found the value of the marital home to be $75,000, awarded the home to the defendant, and entered orders directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff: (1) lump sum alimony of $35,000 payable in two years or upon the sale of the family home, whichever event occurred first; (2) periodic alimony of $75 per week for two years from December 5, 1985; and (3) counsel fees of $1000.
The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's net income had been erroneously calculated and that the order of periodic alimony was thereby flawed. 1 It therefore set aside the trial court's judgment "with respect to its order of periodic alimony only and ... remanded [the case] for further proceedings." Sunbury v. Sunbury, 13 Conn.App. 651, 662, 538 A.2d 1082 (1988).
On June 3, 1988, we granted the plaintiff's petition for certification and thereafter concluded that "[t]o limit the remand in this case to the issue of periodic alimony [only] would impede the trial court's ability to weigh the statutory criteria for financial orders to achieve an equitable result." Sunbury v. Sunbury, 210 Conn. 170, 174-75, 553 A.2d 612 (1989). We further concluded that "[o]n the facts of this case ... the trial court on remand could no more fashion just and equitable financial orders by reconsidering only the issue of periodic alimony, than it could reassemble a broken vase with only one piece." Id., at 173, 553 A.2d 612. Accordingly, we reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case for further proceedings that would include a reconsideration of all financial orders.
On December 22, 1989, the trial court, Byrne, J., entered new financial orders and rendered judgment directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff: (1) lump sum alimony of $35,000 together with interest at the rate of 8 percent; (2) periodic alimony of $110 per week for two years from December 5, 1985; and (3) counsel fees of $3000. The plaintiff again appealed to the Appellate Court. We thereafter transferred the matter to ourselves pursuant to Practice Book § 4023.
On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in valuing the parties' assets as of December 5, 1985, the date of the dissolution of their marriage, instead of August, 1989, the date of the hearing that followed this court's order of remand. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that she was erroneously precluded from introducing evidence at the second hearing establishing that: (1) the marital home awarded to the defendant by the first decree was sold for $120,000 during the pendency of the appeal; and (2) the defendant's employee profit sharing plan had quadrupled in value during the same period.
The division of property and the entry of orders of alimony in dissolution proceedings are governed by General Statutes §§ 46b-81(a) and 46b-82. Section 46b-81(a) provides in part: "At the time of entering a decree ... dissolving a marriage ... the superior court may assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, § 46b-82 provides in part: "At the time of entering the decree, the superior court may order either of the parties to pay alimony to the other...." (Emphasis added.) The only temporal reference in the enabling legislation refers us to the time of the decree as controlling the entry of financial orders. It is neither unreasonable nor illogical, therefore, to conclude that the same date is to be used in determining the value of the marital assets assigned by the trial court to the parties. "In the absence of any exceptional intervening circumstances occurring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wendt v. Wendt
...appropriate method of classification under § 46b-81. The majority approach is analogous to the approach adopted in [Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 583 A.2d 636 (1990)] wherein this court considered how and when the asset at issue was earned in classifying it as nonmarital property. [Id.......
-
Weinstein v. Weinstein
...the value of the parties' assets must be determined as of the time the judgment of dissolution is rendered. See Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 676, 583 A.2d 636 (1990) ("[i]n the absence of any exceptional intervening circumstances occurring in the meantime, [the] date of the granting o......
-
Lopiano v. Lopiano, (SC 15899)
...the assignment of marital assets." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 521. Citing Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 676, 583 A.2d 636 (1990), the Bornemann court further explained that, "in order to determine whether [an] asset is marital property," we "must det......
-
Marina Bornemann v. Bornemann
...previously has determined that "[§] 46b-81 (a) involves the assignment of marital assets." (Emphasis in original.) Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 676, 583 A.2d 636 (1990). After the judgment of dissolution in Sunbury, the case was remanded for redetermination of the financial orders bec......
-
Survey of 1992 Developments in Connecticut Law
...54. 22 Conn. App. 310, 577 A.2d 297 (1990). 55. 221 Conn. at 709. 56. 221 Conn. at 709. See, e.g., Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 676, 583 A.2d 636 57. CONN. GEN. STAT. See. 46b-81 provides: In fixing the nature and value of the property, if any to be assigned, the court, after hearing ......
-
Developments in Connecticut Family Law: 2010
...v. Zahringer, 262 Conn. 360, 815 A.2d 75 (2003). 85. Zahringer, 124 Conn. App. at 675-77. 86. Id. at 688. 87. Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 676, 583 A.2d 636 (1990). 88. 125 Conn. App. 265, 7 A.3d 924 (2010). 89. 82 Conn. App. 378, 844 A.2d 250 (2004). 90. 275 Conn. 348, 880 A.2d 872 (......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...v. Fastner, 427 N.W.2d 691 (Minn. App. 1988). See also, Wagner v. Wagner, 421 S.E.2d 218 (Va. App. 1992). Cf., Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 583 A.2d 636 (1990). In Minnesota, the property is to be valued as of the date of the initially scheduled pre-hearing settlement conference. See ......
-
2008 Connecticut Appellate Review
...409 (2008). 118. 108 Conn. App. 376, 948 A.2d 328 (2008). 119. 108 Conn. App. 813, 949 A.2d 557 (2008). 120.See Prac. Bk. § 61-11. 121. 216 Conn. 673, 583A.2d 636 (1990). 122. 109 Conn. App. 381, 951 A.2d 690, cert. granted, 289 Conn. 929, 958 A.2d 158 (2008). 123.Thomas v. Thomas, 159 Conn......