Anketell v. Kulldorff

308 A.3d 594

223 Conn.App. 345

Beth E. ANKETELL

v.Martin KULLDORFF

(AC 45871)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 12, 2023

Officially Released January 16, 2024

Martin Kulldorff, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

Scott T. Garosshen, Hartford, with whom was Linda L. Morkan, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Bright, C. J., and Cradle and Sheldon, Js.

BRIGHT, C. J.

₃₄₇In this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the self-represented defendant, Martin Kulldorff, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff, Beth E. Anketell, postjudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in ₃₄₈awarding the plaintiff postjudgment interest for certain time periods. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The parties married in 2011, and the plaintiff initiated the dissolution action in 2016. After a two day court trial in September, 2018, the court, Green, J., rendered judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage on December 3, 2018. The court ordered, inter alia, that the "[d]efendant shall transfer $175,000 to the plaintiff from retirement funds/accounts of his choice by way of a qualified domestic relations order [(QDRO)]. … This figure may be adjusted to reflect any gains or losses that have occurred prior to the judgment." The defendant appealed and asserted claims of error unrelated to the division of his retirement funds.¹ This court affirmed the judgment; Anketell v. Kulldorff, 207 Conn. App. 807, 810, 263 A.3d 972, cert. denied, 340 Conn. 905, 263 A.3d 821 (2021); and our Supreme Court denied the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal on November 30, 2021. Anketell v. Kulldorff, 340 Conn. 905, 263 A.3d 821 (2021).

On January 7, 2022, the plaintiff filed a postjudgment motion to implement court orders. In that motion, the plaintiff stated that the parties disagreed as to how to implement the court’s orders regarding counsel fees.² The plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney Carol A. Brigham, also filed a motion for advice for communicating directly ₃₄₉with the defendant, who had filed a self-represented appearance " ‘in addition to’ " his attorney’s appearance. At a February 14, 2022 hearing on those motions, Brigham informed the court that the communication issue had been resolved, and she also addressed the division of the defendant’s retirement funds. Brigham explained: "I believe [the defendant] has submitted the original paperwork. I believe [the plaintiff] has provided her Social Security number, and I believe both parties need to fund … the [QDRO] service, and [they] need to provide any other information that the company would need. So, I think at this point we just want to ensure that both parties fund this … immediately, actually. I think my client believes they both owe $975, and I’m sure the service will not undertake the preparation until the payment is made. So, I would suggest they both pay within a week."

In response, the defendant stated: "So, this was delayed because of the communication issues between me and … Brigham as soon as it was agreed to use this … service. I was the one who filled in all the information that they needed, except I didn’t remember [the plaintiffs] Social Se- curity number, so they were requesting to get that Social Security number, but I’m … glad that she has provided [it] at this time. They haven’t sent a bill yet. As soon as they send a bill, I will pay my part of it. There’s one issue … I thought they were charging per company, but they [are] actually charging per retirement account, and my retirement is split into more than half a dozen different accounts, so I specified three accounts, but I think they are going to—I’m going to revise that. I’ll send them an email later today. So there [are] only two accounts. … I don’t have enough money in one account. I can’t do one account, so I have to do two. But that will save both me and [the plaintiff] $325 each. So, I’m going to ₃₅₀make that change to save a little bit of money for both of us."

On March 14, 2022, the plaintiff filed a postjudgment motion requesting that the court clarify whether the $175,000 award "was to be adjusted for gains and losses until the time of transfer" and that the court "award the plaintiff statutory interest from December 3, 2018, to the present if the QDRO allocation is not adjusted for gains and losses … . " The defendant filed a response to that motion on June 7, 2022, stating that he had "done all the required paperwork and paid the fee. The transfer can proceed as soon as [the plaintiff] and her attorney give the green light. … My understanding is that statutory interest is a concept used for delinquent debts. I am not and have not been delinquent. The retirement transfer was put on hold during the appeal process, governed by judicial rules beyond my control. Subsequent delays were due to (i) … [the] unwillingness [of the plaintiff’s counsel] to directly communicate with me as a [self-represented] party, increasing the time it took to agree on a company to execute the QDRO, and (ii) this subsequent court motion, which has stalled the transfer process.…

"Brigham said that there [is] a Connecticut statute in support of her claim for statutory interest. … If she had sent me a copy of such a statute, and it says what she claims, I would have paid the required amount upon reading it. Since she did not send me a copy, I do not know if it exists or if she was bluffing to intimidate me and/or impress the judge.

"[Brigham] is asking for statutory interest not only for the Appellate Court period, but also for the subsequent delays caused by her. During [that] delay … the stock market has gone down, and the unnecessary … delay in the retirement transfer has therefore caused a financial loss to me and my children. If there is to be an ₃₅₁adjustment, the natural thing would be for me to be compensated for that unnecessary loss …. "

The court held an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for clarification on June 8, 2022, and Attorney Kenneth Caisse appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Both parties were placed under oath at the beginning of the hearing. Caisse explained that the transfer from the defendant’s retirement accounts had not occurred because the company that the parties hired to process the QDROs "would not proceed until there was a resolution of this interest [issue] so that they could have a proper amount, or calculation, to be able to make the transfers. So, they’re waiting on a resolution of this particular motion. I would report to the court that at this point what we’re primarily requesting is the statutory interest, which is 10 percent, which the court has authority to do pursuant to [§] 37-3a …." Shortly thereafter, the following exchange occurred between the court and the defendant:

"The Court: … [D]o you want to be heard before Attorney Caisse argues?

"[The Defendant]: Yes, please. First of all, I submitted a response to the motions. I don’t know if Your Honor has read that.

"The Court: I did read that.

"[The Defendant]: Thank you. I also would like to, just for the record, since I’m now under oath, to just state that all those things are truthful, and that—so I want to do that under oath. So, I’ve been doing that here by doing that. I would also like to have a copy of the Connecticut statute. I know that Attorney Brigham mentioned that in March I think. And I don’t know why I haven’t received … a copy of [it]. I know you mentioned the number, but I didn’t … have time to write down the number."

₃₅₂After the defendant submitted a copy of an email that he had sent to Caisse explaining why he was unable to prepare a financial affidavit, he explained that he would need more time to go through his retirement account records. At that point, the court asked Caisse: "[I]f I grant … [the plaintiff’s] request for the statutory interest then that would obviate the need for [the defendant] to provide those documents. That would solve the problem, would it not?" Caisse responded affirmatively, and the court proceeded to hear argument on the plaintiffs request for statutory interest.

Caisse argued that "the court intended that [the plaintiff] be able … to do what she wants with [the retirement funds as] of December, 2018.

* * *

"If she had, she could have invested—maybe she gets … 15 percent during this period of time …. Or she could have used it for whatever other reason she had. … But she hasn’t been able to do that." Caisse also provided the court and the defendant with copies of the cases he cited in support of an award of postjudgment interest pursuant to § 37-3a.

After hearing from the parties as to other issues unrelated to the present appeal, the court noted that it would issue a ruling clarifying its decision and addressing the plaintiff’s request for postjudgment interest. At that point, the defendant stated: "So, I have no opportunity to read the [cases] provided and the Connecticut statute, I guess?" The court responded, "I’m not ruling [now], so anything that you want to submit between now and the ruling is fine."³

On June 13, 2022, the defendant filed another response to the plaintiffs motion for clarification, in ₃₅₃which he argued that "[t]he retirement transfer did not become payable until after the appeal was denied on November 30, 2021. I have submitted all the paperwork required for the transfer. Delays in 2022 are due to the plaintiff and her previous attorney, as explained in [his June 7, 2022 response to the plaintiff’s motion for clarification]." After addressing the case law cited by Caisse at the June 8, 2022 hearing, the defendant noted that Caisse had "argued for statutory interest based on an increase in [the defendant’s] retirement savings from 2018 to 2021. Much of this increase was due to contributions that I made to my retirement accounts after the divorce was finalized."...