· 3/4/2025

Marzaro v. Marzaro

Citations

  • 231 Conn. App. 85

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from, inter alia, the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that the marital residence, which was held in a revocable trust, with the parties as cotrustees, was subject to equitable distribution pursuant to statute (§ 46b-81). Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in distributing the marital property and assigning the marital debt even though it awarded a larger portion of the marital assets to the plaintiff and the majority of the debt to the defendant, as the court reasonably could have considered the parties' unequal earnings potential and that the majority of the liabilities listed on the defendant's financial affidavit were debts related to his business. The trial court's distribution of the marital residence as marital property pursuant to § 46b-81 was not improper because the defendant and the plain- tiff had a presently existing interest in the marital residence, as they were the lifetime beneficiaries of the trust and had the ability to invade the trust property by revoking the trust, and their children, as remainder beneficiaries, did not have a present interest in the trust and were not necessary and indispensable parties to the action. The plaintiff, whose motion to cite in the cotrustees of the trust had been granted by the trial court, was not required to plead any additional facts with respect to counts two and three of her amended complaint because she did not raise separate causes of action in those counts or allege any wrongdoing in connection with the trust but, rather, identified the beneficiar- ies and trustees of the trust and claimed an interest in the marital residence that was held in the trust. This court declined to review the defendant's claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion for contempt regarding the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with certain discovery orders because the clai

Judges: Elgo; Seeley; DiPentima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.