Von Kohorn v. Von Kohorn, 32504.
Decision Date | 27 December 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 32504.,32504. |
Citation | 132 Conn.App. 709,33 A.3d 809 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Kenneth VON KOHORN v. Susan E. VON KOHORN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Sandra M. Bevans, Hartford, and, on the brief, Susan A. Moch, Westport, for the appellant (defendant).
Samuel V. Schoonmaker IV, with whom was Wendy Dunne DiChristina, for the appellee (plaintiff).
ROBINSON, BEAR and DUPONT, Js.
The defendant, Susan E. Von Kohorn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in response to a motion to reargue and for clarification filed by the plaintiff, Kenneth Von Kohorn, regarding financial orders incident to a judgment of dissolution of marriage. The defendant claims on appeal that (1) the court abused its discretion when it modified sua sponte the existing alimony order from a lifetime award to a term of eight years when such relief was not sought by the plaintiff in his postjudgment motion and (2) the record was inadequate to support an award of alimony limited to a term of eight years. We agree that the court abused its discretion in modifying the alimony award sua sponte and reverse the judgment of the court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff and the defendant married in 1979. The parties raised four children, now all adults. The plaintiff owns and runs a successful investment advisory firm. In recent years, the plaintiff hired his nephew to work at the firm, and the nephew became a 40 percent partner. The defendant never worked outside the home. Both parties are good parents and providers, and they are both in good health. The plaintiff is currently in his early sixties and the defendant is approximately six years younger.
On January 12, 2009, the plaintiff commenced the underlying marital dissolution action, alleging that the marriage had broken down irretrievably with no hope of reconciliation. On May 28, 2010, the court issued a memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage. The court stated that this was an unusual case because there was no evidence indicating the cause of the marital breakdown. The court rendered various financial orders, including an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant “during his lifetime and until her death” alimony consisting of 25 percent of all gross income up to $1 million and 20 percent of all gross income over $1 million up to $2 million, with any income the plaintiff earned in excess of $2 million to be free from any claim of the defendant.
On June 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion titled “motion to reargue and for clarification, post judgment.” Concerning the court's alimony order, the plaintiff first noted that the court's order did not provide that the alimony payments would terminate upon the earlier of the defendant's cohabitation as defined by General Statutes § 46b–86 (b) or her remarriage. The plaintiff stated that such provisions are “usual and customary provisions that the [c]ourt probably intended to include.” The plaintiff further stated that the defendant never asked the court to exclude those provisions from its order. By way of relief, the plaintiff's motion stated: On June 17, 2010, the defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion to reargue and for clarification, in which she argued that clarification or reargument of the alimony order was unnecessary and inappropriate.
On July 13, 2010, the court issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion to reargue that provided in relevant part: (Emphasis added.) This appeal followed.1
The defendant first claims that the court abused its discretion when it modified sua sponte the existing alimony order from a lifetime award to a term of eight years where such relief was not requested by the plaintiff in his motion to reargue and for clarification. Because we agree with the defendant that the court's modification was improper and reverse the judgment, it is unnecessary to address the defendant's second claim that the record was inadequate to support an award of alimony limited to a term of eight years.
Our standard of review and the law relevant to the defendant's claim on appeal is as follows. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Clark v. Clark, 127 Conn.App. 148, 153–54, 13 A.3d 682, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 914, 19 A.3d 1260 (2011).
(Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Richards v. Richards, 78 Conn.App. 734, 739–40, 829 A.2d 60, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 922, 835 A.2d 473 (2003).
In addition to the opening and modifying of a final judgment, Practice Book §§ 11–11 and 63–1 contemplate the filing of a motion seeking reargument of a final judgment. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692–93, 778 A.2d 981 (2001). In addition to seeking alteration of a judgment, a party may also seek clarification. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597, 604–605, 974 A.2d 641 (2009). A court has broad discretion to treat a motion for clarification of a judgment or a motion to reargue a judgment as a motion to open and modify the judgment provided that the motion is filed within the four month period and the substance of the motion and the relief requested therein is sufficient to apprise the nonmovant of the purpose of the motion. See Fitzsimons v. Fitzsimons, 116 Conn.App. 449, 455 n. 5, 975 A.2d 729 (2009); Rome v. Album, 73 Conn.App. 103, 111–12, 807 A.2d 1017 (2002).
To determine whether the court in the present case abused its discretion in responding to the plaintiff's postjudgment motion, we look to the relief sought by the plaintiff in the motion in conjunction with the language of the court's response. In the plaintiff's motion, he first explains his belief that it is usual and customary for alimony orders to terminate upon the recipient's cohabitation or remarriage, and that the court likely intended to include such limitations in the original alimony award. He requests that the court correct the apparent omission by clarifying its decision to expressly provide that alimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Brien v. O'Brien
...properly characterized as one seeking a clarification or a modification.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Von Kohorn v. Von Kohorn, 132 Conn.App. 709, 714, 33 A.3d 809 (2011). 29. The plaintiff asserts that his claim is supported by this court's recent decision in Von Kohorn v. Von Koho......
-
Valentine v. Valentine
...every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Von Kohorn v. Von Kohorn, 132 Conn.App. 709, 713, 33 A.3d 809 (2011). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when althou......
-
D2E Holdings, LLC v. Corp. For Urban Home Ownership of New Haven
... ... determinations. [ 12 ] See Von Kohorn v. Von Kohorn, ... 132 Conn.App. 709, 714-15, 33 A.3d 809 (2011) (outlining ... ...
- Marinos v. Poirot, 33193.