Puff v. Puff

177 Conn.App. 103

171 A.3d 1076

Claudia PUFF

v.Gregory PUFF

AC 37640

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 16, 2017

Officially released October 10, 2017

Samuel V. Schoonmaker IV, with whom, on the brief, was Wendy Dunne DiChristina, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Edward M. Kweskin, with whom were Sarah Gleason and, on the brief, Zachary J. Phillipps and Leonard M. Braman, for the appellee (defendant).

DiPentima, C.J., and Beach and Bishop, Js.

BEACH, J.

The plaintiff, Claudia Puff, appeals from the orders of the trial court entered in connection with various motions following the dissolution of her marriage to the defendant, Gregory Puff. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) approving a stipulated agreement between the parties, (2) modifying the parties' agreement, (3) approving the parties' agreement without first conducting an adequate canvass pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–66, and (4) granting the defendant's motion for contempt. We agree with the plaintiff's fourth claim and disagree with her other claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse in part, the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as they appear in the record, and procedural history are relevant. The parties were married in 1988. There were no children issue of the marriage. In September, 2002, the plaintiff commenced an action for dissolution of the marriage. On December 19, 2002, the court, Grogins, J., rendered judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. The judgment of dissolution incorporated by reference a separation agreement, which provided that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff periodic alimony of $5900 per month, and an additional $5000 each August and December, for ten years, subject to earlier termination for reasons not relevant here.

In March, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for an upward modification of alimony as to amount and duration, on the bases of increases in the defendant's income and in her living expenses. In June, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for modification of alimony on the additional basis of her deteriorating health; she recently had received a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. On February 28, 2012, the court, Emons, J., granted the motion for modification, but ordered that the increase in duration and amount was nonmodifiable. The plaintiff filed a motion to open and set aside the February 28, 2012 decision. On April 9, 2013, the court, Emons, J., granted the plaintiff's motion to open and vacated its February 28, 2012 decision for the purpose of hearing additional evidence.

On February 19, 2014, a hearing was held before Judge Heller. During that hearing, the defendant's attorney stated the terms of a stipulated agreement regarding the plaintiff's motion to modify and other motions. The plaintiff's attorney stated that the parties were relying on experts to create a special needs trust into which the defendant would pay alimony, but that "[there are] some terms that we are just unfamiliar with ... so the concept will be put on the record, but the actual term of how that's [going to] take place is not [going to] be put on the record." He explained that the parties would "work on the details of the writing, and ... submit it at a later date." The defendant's attorney said, "This is ... a postjudgment stipulation. It comes upon the plaintiff's motion for modification of alimony. And so the agreement is as follows ...." He proceeded to state the agreement, which contained twelve paragraphs, on the record.

The court then canvassed both parties. The plaintiff indicated that she had reviewed the terms of the agreement with her attorney, that she understood all of the provisions and that she believed the agreement to be fair and equitable. The court stated that it found the stipulated agreement to be fair and equitable and approved the agreement.

The defendant filed a motion on May 16, 2014, requesting the court to approve his proposed draft reducing, into writing, the terms of the oral stipulation presented at the February 19, 2014 hearing. The court, Heller, J., held a hearing on the defendant's motion on June 17, 2014. The plaintiff objected on the ground that the stipulation presented at the February 19, 2014 hearing should be vacated because it was impossible to execute. The court stated that it would compare the draft of the agreement with the transcript of the February 19, 2014 proceedings, and it continued the matter to a later date.

On June 18, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to open and vacate the February 19, 2014 order. In that motion, the plaintiff argued that the trust contemplated in the February 19, 2014 oral stipulation could not qualify under the law as a special needs trust in the circumstances presented and that the defendant would not be able to deduct the $10,000 monthly payment required under the agreement from his gross income for the purpose of reducing his taxes.

The defendant's attorney presented a revised draft of the stipulation at a hearing before Judge Heller on August 18, 2014. The plaintiff's attorney argued that the revised draft stipulation was inconsistent with the February 19, 2014 oral stipulation, and that the terms of the February 19, 2014 oral stipulation could not be implemented according to trust and tax law. The court stated: "I think what the parties believed at the time [of the February 19, 2014 hearing] may not be what they believe today. But what I will do is enter an order and turn the stipulation into a written order of the court. ... And then we'll proceed with [the plaintiff's motion to open and vacate the February 19, 2014 order]."

On November 17, 2014, the court, Heller, J., reduced the February 19, 2014 oral stipulation to a written order entitled "memorandum of decision on postjudgment motions resolved by stipulation approved and so ordered on February 19, 2014." The document set forth the terms of the stipulated agreement stated on the record at the February 19, 2014 hearing. Several paragraphs are especially germane to the issues on appeal. Paragraph one provided that the defendant was to pay to the plaintiff as periodic alimony $10,000 per month for 120 months and that the plaintiff had the right to assign the alimony to a special needs trust, subject to the defendant's ability to deduct the alimony from his gross income under the Internal Revenue Code. Paragraph six provided that the defendant was to be a residual beneficiary of the special needs trust in the same proportion as the sum of the alimony payments made or assigned to the special needs trust was to the total contributions to the special needs trust from all sources. Paragraph eight provided that the plaintiff was to prepare a list of the defendant's statements that she deemed "hurtful or nasty," that the defendant was to retract those statements, that those retractions would not be deemed admissions, and that neither party was to disparage the other personally or professionally. Paragraph nine provided that the plaintiff "shall immediately secure, or endeavor to secure, a legal opinion to the effect that any action taken by the plaintiff to assign the alimony payments to the special needs trust does not affect the deductibility of such payments by the defendant under the tax laws of the United States." Paragraph ten gave the defendant the ability to recoup certain amounts from the special needs trust in the event that he was unable to deduct the alimony payments from his gross income. Paragraph eleven provided that the parties' February 19, 2014 oral stipulation was to supersede all prior orders in the case.

The court's recitation of the agreement was made available to the parties at a hearing on November 18, 2014, in connection with the plaintiff's motion to open and vacate the February 19, 2014 order. At the hearing the court stated the following: "I thought it would be helpful to the parties to have a written opinion of the court that tracked all of the orders that were put on the record on February [19, 2014]." The court said that "there was a binding agreement that was approved and ordered by the court on February [19, 2014]. It was not contingent. There were provisions that needed to be addressed relating to the terms of the special needs trust. But the parties had put the terms of their agreement on the record, and that agreement was approved and so ordered by the court." At the hearing, the plaintiff said that, on further consideration, her motion to open was "superfluous" and that she would not proceed with it. In her view, there had been no meeting of the minds on February 19, 2014, sufficient to form a settlement agreement on which a stipulation could be based. The plaintiff asserted that there was, then, no valid postjudgment order and, thus, nothing to open. The court disagreed with the plaintiff. This appeal followed.

On December 22, 2014, the defendant filed a motion seeking sanctions and a finding of contempt. On March 23, 2015, the court held a hearing on the defendant's motion. On March 27, 2015, the court, Tindill, J., granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff then filed an amended appeal.¹

I

The plaintiff claims that on February 19, 2014, the court misapplied § 46b–66² when it approved the parties' stipulated agreement as an order of the court. The plaintiff claims that the stipulation did not create an enforceable agreement, but only an "agreement to agree." We are not persuaded.

We begin by setting forth the following general principles. "A stipulated judgment constitutes a contract of the parties acknowledged in open court and ordered to be recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction. ... A stipulated judgment allows the parties to avoid litigation by entering into an agreement that will settle their differences once the court renders judgment on the basis of the agreement. ... A stipulated judgment, although obtained through mutual consent of the parties, is binding to the same degree as a judgment obtained through...