Opinion
No. CV 95-0068922 S
September 9, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This case is before the Court on Remand from the Connecticut Supreme Court to enter orders of distribution of proceeds of a partition sale of Real Property located in Goshen, CT in accordance with the law. Segal v. Segal, 264 Conn. 498 (2003).
Background
In September 1995, the Plaintiff filed a Partition action in the Judicial District of Litchfield in reference to Real Property located at 12 East Street North Goshen, Ct. The property having been purchased by the parties in 1980 and jointly owned by the parties. On Sept. 15, 1998 the Court entered a Judgment of Partition by Sale, which resulted in a sale of the property for $500,000 with the proceeds being paid into the Court. Neither appealed the Partition Judgment, but each filed a motion for the determination of interest and equities to the sale proceeds. The net proceeds after payment of the Committee fees and expenses were $496,411.54
The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1988 in the State of Nevada. In accordance with that decree, the Plaintiff was to pay certain sums and alimony of $25,000 per month to the Defendant. The Plaintiff was also to pay all expense for maintenance of the Goshen property until it was sold. The Plaintiff paid these expenses up until sometime in 1992. The Defendant paid the taxes and maintenance on the property from 1992 through the sale in 1998 in the sum of $88,783.19. In August 1998, the Nevada District Court entered a judgment in favor of the Defendant in the amount of 2.7 million dollars for the Plaintiff's breach of the Nevada Dissolution judgment. Both parties took appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court though the Defendant's was later withdrawn. On August 9, 2001, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the money judgment, but did reverse another part of the judgment which is not relevant or material to this action.
The Defendant properly filed on Sept. 16, 1998 the Nevada judgment in the Connecticut Superior Court at Litchfield, pursuant to General Statutes Sec. 52-605 (a) which action is on file in the Judicial District of Litchfield as Docket #CV 98 077826.
The motions for distributions of the partition proceeds came before the Court, Dipentima, J. on January 22, 1999 and February 4, 1999 when the parties were fully heard. By Memorandum of Decision dated April 1, 1999, the Court, Dipentima, J., found that each of the parties was entitled to one-half of the proceeds, and that in addition, the Defendant was entitled to the expenses paid from 1992-98 in the amount of $88,783.19. The funds were ordered distributed as follows:
To the Plaintiff: $159,422.58
To the Defendant: $336,988.96
The Defendant also moved the Court to order the balance distributed to the Plaintiff to be paid to her as partial settlement of the Nevada Judgment which she had on file in accordance with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act pursuant to General Statutes, Sections 52-604 through 609. The Plaintiff contended the court was prohibited from making such distribution because the Nevada Judgment was on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The trial court, relying on General Statutes 52-606 (a), declined to enforce the Nevada Judgment Section 52-606 (a) provides in part: "If the judgment debtor shows the court that an appeal is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution has been granted, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded . . ." Both parties appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court. The Plaintiff appealed the trial court's distribution of the proceeds. The defendant's cross appeal claimed the Nevada judgment was enforceable. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decisions as to both the distribution of the proceeds and the unenforceability of the foreign judgment due to the pending appeal. Segal v. Segal, 65 Conn. App. 17 (2001).
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification on the issue of Enforcement of the Foreign Judgment only. Segal v. Segal, 258 Conn. 927, 783 A.2d 1030 (2001). The Connecticut Supreme Court, on June 24, 2003, reversed the Appellate Court and ruled that the Foreign Judgment was enforceable. Segal v. Segal, 264 Conn. 498, 507. The Court found that under Nevada Law the Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor was required to furnish security to effectuate a stay of the judgment. Since the Plaintiff had not furnished the security, the applicable sections of General Statute 52-606 (a) had not been fulfilled and the Nevada Judgment was enforceable under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act.
Subsequent to the Supreme Court's ruling both parties filed motions for distribution of the net Partition proceeds. On Sept 2, 2003, this court heard arguments from both parties concerning the distribution. The Plaintiff contends that because the Nevada judgment was reversed in part a new foreign judgment must be filed. The Defendant argues that since the money award was upheld, and that is all we are concerned with here, no new filing is required and the entire proceeds of the sale should be distributed to his client. The court agrees with the Defendant: The foreign judgment was filed properly and is enforceable in accordance with the Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling.
In a partition sale, even where each party may be the owner of an individual one-half interest in the property, it does not necessarily follow that he or she will be entitled to equal shares of the monies obtained for the sale, "equities must be considered and if established, must be liquidated before distribution is ordered." Hackett v. Hackett, 42 Conn. Sup. 36, 598 A.2d 1112 (1990), aff'd 26 Conn. App. 149 (1991). In this case the defendant has not received any monies from the Plaintiff either from the sale of this property or the foreign judgment.
The Court therefore, in accordance with General Statutes, Section 52-502 (b) orders the Partition proceeds distributed as follows:
To the Defendant:
$248,205.77 representing one-half of the net proceeds
$88,783.19 representing the expenses paid 1992-98
$159,422.58 representing Partial Settlement of the Nevada Judgment
Total $496,411.54
To the Plaintiff:
$-0 —
Accordingly the Defendant's motion for Distribution is Granted and the Plaintiff's Objection is Overruled.
Brunetti, J.