Moyher v. Moyher, 198 Conn. App. 334 (2020) (division of marital property; preservation of issues for appeal, ability to comply with orders and abuse of discretion)
Officially released June 23, 2020.
In Short: Real property that you own is subject to distribution; it constitutes abuse of discretion for the court to enter an order that a party cannot comply with; you must preserve your claims for appeal on the record; objecting in chambers will get you nowhere.
Husband appealed judgment of dissolution claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) finding that certain real property located in New Hampshire was a martial assets and awarding Wife 40% of its value, (2) precluding evidence of a prenuptial agreement at trial, and (3) ordering Husband to pay the awarded share of the New Hampshire residence ($150,750 plus interest) within five months of judgment.
The Appellate Court made short work of Husband’s first claim on appeal. Husband owned the New Hampshire property and the trial court properly considered the factors of § 46b-81(c) in making division of such without abuse of discretion.
The Appellate Court held that Husband’s claim that the trial court improperly precluded him from presenting a prenuptial agreement was not preserved for review. Husband claimed that the trial court indicated in chambers that it would reject such agreement. However, the trial court stated at the opening of trial that it would not consider evidence of the prenuptial agreement and Husband failed to offer it for identification and failed to object to its exclusion from evidence on the record.
The Appellate Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Husband to pay the settlement within five months of dissolution. Husband had only worked sporadically and part-time during the marriage and was unemployed, he had no access to other assets and was ordered not to encumber the New Hampshire property. He had no means to comply, and thus it was abuse of discretion. This aspect was deemed severable and the case was remanded for new orders on the payment issue alone.
