Yun Zhou v. Hao Zhang

• Decision Date: 11 February 2020
• Docket Number: SC 20146
• Citation: 223 A.3d 775,334 Conn. 601
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: YUN ZHOU v. HAO ZHANG

334 Conn. 601

223 A.3d 775

YUN ZHOU

v.HAO ZHANG

SC 20146

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 14, 2018

Officially released February 11, 2020

Gaetano Ferro, with whom was Olivia M. Hebenstreit, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Scott T. Garosshen and, on the brief, Wayne Effron and Reuben Midler, for the appellee (defendant).

Campbell D. Barrett and Johanna S. Katz filed a brief for the guardian ad litem.

Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Vertefeuille, Js.

PALMER, J.

The plaintiff, Yun Zhou, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Hao Zhang. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) improperly declined to enforce the parties' purported written revocation of their postnuptial agreement¹ (revocation agreement), (2) incorrectly determined that the postnuptial agreement was enforceable, and (3) improperly awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their minor children, with the defendant having final decision-making authority. We reject the plaintiff's claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following relevant facts, as found by the trial court and supplemented by the record, and procedural history. The parties were married in 2006 and have two children, a son and a daughter, who were born in 2006 and 2008, respectively. "The plaintiff ... is in good health. She, like the defendant, is a native of China and a permanent resident of the United States.² She has a doctoral degree in mechanical and nuclear engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. She was employed as a research fellow at the University of Maryland and at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University from 2007 [until] 2013. Her highest salary from those positions at that time was $50,000 per year. In addition, she worked as a private consultant from 2012 through 2014, earning, at her highest point from both positions, income of $77,500 a year. She has published numerous papers and articles in the field of nuclear engineering. She has not worked outside of the home since 2014. She is currently studying for a master's degree in public administration at Columbia University. She plans to resume a career in public policy analysis or research after obtaining her master's degree .... Based on the foregoing, the [court] finds that the plaintiff has an annual earning capacity of $77,500.

‘‘The defendant ... [also] is in good health. He has a doctoral degree in computer science from the University of California, Berkeley. He is employed as a managing director for Two Sigma Investments in New York City. His base salary is $250,000 a year, according to his most recent financial affidavit.³

‘‘The parties are ... joint owners of the marital residence ... in Greenwich .... The property has a fair market value of $3.1 million, and is encumbered by a mortgage in the amount of $2,011,311, yielding equity in the amount of $1,088,689. In addition, the defendant maintains two rental properties for himself, one in New York City and another in Greenwich ... with a total monthly rental fee of $14,475....

"The [parties'] children are enrolled in myriad activities, with [the son] involved [in] tennis, piano, water polo, and chess, and [the daughter] involved in swimming, flute, art and dance." (Footnote added; footnote altered.)

On February 25, 2012, after seeking and obtaining the advice of counsel, disclosing to one another their assets and liabilities, and exchanging financial affidavits, the parties entered into and signed a properly acknowledged postnuptial agreement. That agreement provides that, if one of the parties commenced a dissolution action between February 1, 2013, and February 1, 2015, the plaintiff would receive "$350,000 per year ($29,167 per month) of alimony [for] ... a time period equal to one half the length of the parties' marriage as measured from the marriage date to the date of the commencement of the [dissolution] [a]ction." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The plaintiff also would receive the marital residence and one third of the parties' aggregate net worth⁴ as of the date of the dissolution decree. The postnuptial agreement further provides: "If the market price of the house less the mortgage loan exceeds ... one third of the [p]arties' [a]ggregate [n]et [w]orth, the [plaintiff] will not receive any portion of either party's assets. Otherwise, the [plaintiff] will acquire the amount of [one third] of the [p]arties' [a]ggregate [n]et [w]orth less the equity [in the] marital [residence] (the market price of the marital [residence] less the mortgage loan)." Paragraph 8.1 of the postnuptial agreement permits revocation "if made in writing and executed with the same formality as [the] [a]greement." In addition, the postnuptial agreement has a severability clause, which provides that, if "any provision, clause, section or paragraph of [the] [a]greement is invalid, is void or unenforceable for any reason, it shall be deemed severable from the remainder of the [a]greement."

Thereafter, the parties concluded that their marriage had broken down irretrievably, and, on October 23, 2013, the plaintiff filed for divorce. In an effort to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the matter, the parties decided to enter into mediation. Upon receiving the names of two prospective mediators from the plaintiff, the defendant visited the website of one of them, Maurice Segall. Among other things, Segall's website contained the following representations about the advantages of mediation: "The couple has control over the process, and control over the decisions that affect [their] lives and the lives of [their] children." (Emphasis in original.) "With the help of the mediator, the couple is able to make their own fully informed decisions ." (Emphasis in original.) "Mediation is informal and confidential ." (Emphasis in original.) "Mediation is entirely voluntary . Anyone can leave mediation at any time, without sacrificing any of [his or her] rights." (Emphasis in original.) In reliance on this language, the defendant agreed to retain Segall, and, in October, 2013, Segall and the parties signed a mediation agreement, which provided in relevant part: "The [p]arties agree to keep confidential all statements made during the mediation, as well as all written, photographic, electronic or printed material and documents prepared or presented during the mediation, except that either [p]arty may share that information with his or her attorney. This agreement regarding confidentiality shall pertain to all circumstances, including but not limited to any civil and criminal proceedings."

Soon after mediation commenced, the plaintiff informed the defendant that she favored revoking the parties' postnuptial agreement. According to the defendant, he told the plaintiff that, "under the umbrella of the mediation, we could try this [revocation] and see if we can negotiate without the postnuptial [agreement]." On December 20, 2013, the plaintiff sent Segall and the defendant an e-mail inquiring as to whether Segall could assist the parties in revoking the postnuptial agreement. In an e-mail response to the parties that same day, Segall stated: "Yes, I can help with the [postnuptial] matter; however, as a practical matter the ultimate separation agreement that you'll reach will contain the terms that will govern, and would effectively override the [postnuptial agreement]. [Let's] discuss this when we next meet." Segall then proceeded to prepare a document entitled "Revocation of Postnuptial Agreement."

Prior to signing the revocation agreement, the parties again made full disclosure to one another of their assets and liabilities and exchanged financial affidavits. In a series of e-mails beginning and concluding with Segall's e-mails to the parties dated January 10 and 17, 2014, respectively, Segall and the parties discussed the drafting of the revocation agreement and scheduled a time to sign it. During this period, the plaintiff's attorney, Andrew Nemiroff, advised the plaintiff on the revocation. In particular, he advised the plaintiff to have Segall remove language in the original draft agreement indicating that the agreement was supported by consideration because, as the plaintiff testified at trial, "no new promises, undertakings, or consideration [was] exchanged in connection with the revocation ... agreement." At about this same time, the defendant, who previously had not been represented during mediation, tried to contact attorney Wayne Effron, who had represented him in connection with the parties' postnuptial agreement, but Effron did not respond to the defendant's attempts to reach him. Nevertheless, on January 18, 2014, the parties duly executed the revocation agreement.⁵

According to the defendant, he signed the agreement because he understood that all documents and agreements created during the mediation process would remain confidential and were to be used solely by the parties for the purpose of obtaining a complete settlement agreement, that is, an agreement that resolved all of the disputed issues. Consistent with this understanding, he further understood that, because "mediation is an all or nothing process," any document that he signed would have no legal effect unless and until the mediation process resulted in the parties' reaching such a complete agreement.

The defendant's understandings regarding the agreement were based on the representations set forth on Segall's website concerning the right of either party to terminate mediation at any time without sacrificing any of his or her preexisting rights, Segall's December 20, 2013 e-mail to the parties indicating that revocation of the postnuptial agreement was not necessary because it effectively would be superseded by any mediated settlement between the parties, and paragraph 4 (a) of the mediation...