Opinion
No. FA 01-0728829 S
June 3, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The key case on the issue of fraud in a family case is Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 592 A.2d 1377 (1991), on remand 27 Conn.App. 466, 606 A.2d 737 (1992), cert. denied 224 Conn. 906, 615 A.2d 1047 (1992). That court said: the principle of full and frank disclosure . . . is essential to our strong policy that the "private settlement of the financial affairs of estranged marital partners is a goal that courts should support rather than undermine." (Citations omitted). That goal requires, in turn, that "reasonable settlements have been knowingly agreed upon." (Citation omitted). Our support of that goal will be effective only if we instill confidence in marital litigants that we require, as a concomitant of the settlement process, such full and frank disclosure from both sides, for then they will be more willing to forgo their contract and to settle their dispute privately, secure in the knowledge that they have all the essential information.
The alleged actions of the defendant are inconsistent with the nature of a marital dissolution case and with the rights and obligations arising out of the marital relationship that it legally terminates. Well-established judicial procedures in marital-dissolution matters have long required the time a dissolution of marriage action is claimed for a hearing, the moving party shall file a sworn statement of current income, expenses, assets and liabilities, and pertinent records of employment, gross earnings, gross wages and all other income. And, the opposing party is required to file a similar affidavit a reasonable period of time before the date of the hearing.
This court observes that the facts alleged in the attached "Motion to Reopen Judgment/Petition for a New Trial" represent a situation falling within the concept of fraud on the court, and allegedly deprived the court of the means to discharge its statutory obligation "to determine whether a settlement agreement is `fair and equitable under all the circumstances.'" General Statutes § 46b-66. The court further observes that the attached "Stipulation to Open Judgment" could have constricted the scope of discovery for the new trial, and did not. Therefore, this court overrules defendant's pending objection to said discovery.
BY THE COURT,
Alvord, J.
ATTACHMENT I MOTION TO REOPEN JUDGMENT/PETITION FOR A NEW TRIAL
Julia Kaplun, Plaintiff/Petitioner in the above matter, represents to this Court as follows:
1. Petitioner and Respondent, formerly husband and wife, had their marriage dissolved by this Court on January 8, 2003 (Docket No. FA01-0728829 S).
2. As part of the dissolution action each party submitted to the court sworn financial affidavits which displayed, inter alia, the various assets of each party.
3. Less than two months following the entry of a judgment dissolving the Parties' marriage Respondent purchased certain real property located at 12 Garden Path in Farmington, CT. (Vol. 740, Page 555, Farmington, CT Land Records). The purchase price for said real property was $182,000.00.
4. Respondent financed the purchase of said real estate by a first mortgage deed to Sovereign Bank dated February 28, 2003 in the face amount of $127,400.00 (Vol. 740, Page 558 Farmington, CT Land Records).
5. Respondent would have been required to come up with approximately $55,000.00 for down payment money and closing costs to effectuate the purchase of said real estate.
6. The financial affidavit filed by Respondent at the time of the dissolution of the Parties' Marriage showed virtually no assets available to effectuate this real estate purchase.
Respondent was, in fact, required to borrow $75,000.00 from a third person so as to effectuate the property settlement embodied in the Parties' Marriage Dissolution Judgment of January 8, 2003.
7. Respondent purchased said property from his parents who had purchased the property from third persons approximately two months after this action began.
8. During the entire pendency of this action Respondent lived at said property, rent-ree. His parents never resided there.
9. Respondent submitted a false and grossly inaccurate financial affidavit at the time of the Parties' Marriage Dissolution action.
10. But for the false and misleading information by Respondent in his financial affidavit at the time of the Parties' Marriage Dissolution Action the outcome of said action would have been substantially different.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons as recited hereinabove and, pursuant to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-270 and pursuant to the rule of law as expressed by the Connecticut Appellate Court in Greger v. Greger, 22 Conn.App. 596 (1990). Petitioner prays that this Court will set aside the judgment in the marriage dissolution action referenced hereinabove and grant her a new trial in said action.
ATTACHMENT II STIPULATION TO OPEN JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff and Defendant hereby stipulate to the opening of the judgment in this matter.