Officially released December 11, 2018.
The parties entered into a post-judgment stipulation to open the Judgment and modify the property distribution. The matter was originally appealed and remanded to the trial court based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction to modify the property distribution post judgment. Thereafter, the Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings based on Reinke v. Sing, 328 Conn. 376, which permitted the trial court to open property distribution post-judgment by agreement.
The Appellate Court held that, as in Reinke v. Sing, where the parties had entered into a post-judgment agreement to open and modify the distribution, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to exercise its statutory authority.
Defendant’s claim of error on the trial court’s modification of the original property distribution was that the trial court failed to consider an “advance” against his equitable distribution in modifying the orders. Defendant failed to preserve his claim by not raising it before the trial court, but the Appellate Court exercised jurisdiction to consider it on the basis that the minimum threshold for review had been met and Defendant could not prevail on such claim. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment finding that Defendant’s entire claim of error had not basis in the record.
