O. A. v. J. A.
| Decision Date | 27 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | SC 20590 |
| Parties | O. A. v. J. A. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
James P. Sexton, Hartford, with whom were Thomas D. Colin, Greenwich, Julia K. Conlin and, on the brief, Emily Graner Sexton, for the appellant (defendant).
Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom was Karen L. Dowd, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.
In this interlocutory appeal,1 we must decide whether a spouse seeking pendente lite alimony, attorney's fees, and expert fees during the pendency of a dissolution action must demonstrate that a postnuptial agreement that purportedly precludes such payments is invalid or otherwise unenforceable before the trial court properly may order the other spouse to make any such payments.
Shortly after their marriage in 2013, the plaintiff, O. A., and the defendant, J. A., executed a postnuptial agreement setting forth terms for the distribution of property and determining support awards in the event of the dissolution of their marriage. In 2019, the plaintiff brought this action, seeking, inter alia, dissolution of the marriage and temporary and permanent alimony. The defendant filed a cross complaint in which he sought, inter alia, enforcement of the parties’ postnuptial agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed motions for pendente lite attorney's fees, alimony, and expert fees. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted in part the plaintiff's motions and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff (1) temporary alimony in the amount of $20,000 per month, (2) $114,019.99 in current attorney's fees and a retainer for legal counsel in the amount of $250,000, and (3) a contribution toward specified future expert fees in the amount of $25,000. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly determined that it need not determine the enforceability of the parties’ postnuptial agreement before awarding the plaintiff pendente lite alimony, attorney's fees, and expert fees (hereinafter alimony and litigation expenses), which the defendant contends the plaintiff is not entitled to under the agreement.
We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, which were either found by the trial court or are otherwise undisputed, are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant married in Greenwich on September 29, 2013. At the time of marriage, the plaintiff was approximately twenty-eight years old, had no children, and had an approximate net worth of $275,400, and the defendant was forty-five years old, had one daughter from a previous marriage, and had an approximate net worth of $32 million.
Nearly four months after their marriage, on January 17, 2014, the parties entered into a postnuptial agreement in hopes that it would "settle questions with respect to certain marital rights and property to prevent strife and to enhance the prospects for marital harmony ...." Both parties were represented by separate and independent counsel and made financial disclosures to the other prior to executing the agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties waived any legal right that they might otherwise have to the property of the other in the event of a "[t]ermination [e]vent," which is defined to include the filing of a dissolution action. The agreement further provides that, should a termination event occur, the parties will have restored to them the value of the individual property2 that each party brought into the marriage plus the monetary value of any bequest, trust interest, inheritance, gift, insurance benefits, or the like that either party received during the marriage. The defendant also agreed to assume full financial responsibility for any child born to the marriage or adopted by the parties prior to the termination event.
With respect to marital property,3 the agreement provides that it "shall be distributed to the parties in the same proportion to the value of their respective [i]ndividual [p]roperty (each party's asset value on the [d]ate of [m]arriage plus the monetary value at the date of transfer of any subsequent gifts or inheritance received by either party during marriage and prior to a [t]ermination [e]vent)." With respect to spousal support, the agreement provides that the defendant waives any claim to receive alimony from the plaintiff but agrees to pay the plaintiff alimony, the amount of which is to be determined pursuant to a complex formula that takes into account various factors, including, but not limited to (1) the length of the parties’ marriage, (2) whether they conceived children who were born alive, and (3) the amount of individual property returned to the defendant.
Of particular relevance here, the agreement provides that, if a termination event occurs between the fifth and eighth anniversaries of the date of the parties’ marriage, a child was conceived prior to the termination event and later born alive, the plaintiff receives "an aggregate of [m]arital [p]roperty and alimony equaling less than $500,000," and "the value of [the defendant's] [i]ndividual [p]roperty restored to him by the court upon the termination of the marriage is in excess of $10,000,000, then ... [the defendant] will be obligated to pay a minimum of $100,000 of alimony annually to [the plaintiff] until she receives gifts or inheritances having an aggregate value greater than $10,000,000, taking the value of each such gift or inheritance on the date of transfer, whether prior to or after the [t]ermination [e]vent."
The agreement does not expressly address the issue of pendente lite alimony. It defines the term "alimony" as "the dollar amount of the alimony award made by the court upon the formal termination of the marriage "; (emphasis added); a definition that would not clearly and unambiguously include an award of pendente lite alimony, which is made during the pendency of the dissolution action, prior to the formal termination of the marriage. See, e.g., Connolly v. Connolly , 191 Conn. 468, 480, 464 A.2d 837 (1983) (). The agreement also does not discuss attorney's fees or expert fees, except to state that, if a party unsuccessfully challenges the agreement or breaches it, then he or she will be responsible for the other party's attorney's fees.
After the execution of the postnuptial agreement, the parties began what the trial court described as a "fairly affluent" and "bicoastal" lifestyle, with family homes in Greenwich and Malibu, California. They later had two children—a girl, born in 2015, and a boy, born in 2017. During the marriage, the defendant was the sole financial provider for the family, and the plaintiff relied on him entirely for financial support. The defendant, who is self-employed, is involved in a number of business ventures. Specifically, Despite the defendant's numerous business ventures, however, he testified that the parties had, and continue to have, significant " ‘cash flow’ " issues due to the illiquidity of the defendant's assets.
These " ‘cash flow’ " problems, as well as the plaintiff's mental health challenges, are two of the factors that precipitated the decline of the parties’ marriage. Additionally, on a family trip to Colorado in December, 2018, the plaintiff and the defendant's then teenage daughter were involved in a physical altercation. Subsequently, in April, 2019, the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a physical altercation, after which the police were called and the plaintiff was arrested.4
In July, 2019, the plaintiff admitted herself into Silver Hill Hospital in New Canaan. The plaintiff testified that "she went to Silver Hill Hospital because she realized [that] she needed help after having gone through several difficult situations, including, in November, 2018, losing an election for public office in Malibu [California], shortly thereafter, having her home destroyed [by fire], then, the December, 2018 altercation with her step-daughter, and, finally, in 2019 ... a miscarriage." The plaintiff spent thirty days at Silver Hill Hospital and received treatment for a mild cannabis disorder and for managing her emotions.
The plaintiff was discharged from Silver Hill Hospital on August 21, 2019, and commenced this dissolution action two days later. On August 21, the defendant sought and was granted an ex parte restraining order against the plaintiff, barring her from the marital home and from contacting the defendant, his daughter, and the parties’ children. On September 20, 2019, the defendant filed an answer and a cross complaint, seeking, inter alia, enforcement of the parties’ postnuptial agreement. The plaintiff thereafter filed separate motions for pendente lite attorney's fees, temporary alimony, and expert fees.5 In her reply to the defendant's cross complaint, the plaintiff sought avoidance of the parties’ postnuptial agreement on a number of grounds, including that the agreement was signed by her under duress, that the defendant did not provide full, fair and reasonable financial disclosure prior to its execution, and that it would be unconscionable to enforce it in light of present circumstances. In response, the defendant filed a motion to bifurcate the trial, arguing that the trial court should first determine the enforceability of the parties’ postnuptial agreement before awarding the plaintiff pendente lite alimony and litigation expenses to which she may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial