Rathblott vs. Rathblott
Oct 14, 2003OUTCOME: Created a bright line rule for C.G.S. 46b-81
The Court concluded that § 46b-81 authorizes the court to issue orders respecting marital property only at the time of dissolution; it does not authorize postjudgment orders for the division of marita ... l property. Accordingly, in the present case, the court lacked authority to issue a postjudgment order that the marital property, which the court failed to assign to either party at the time of dissolution, be sold at auction. In this file, the Plaintiff had personal property that the Defendant refused to turn over, despite alternative resolution attempts. The judge (John Downey, presiding) ruled that the disputed property was to be sold at an auction and the proceeds divided. The Plaintiff's opposition to such action revolved around the emotional value of the property, not the retail/auction value. This was purely a matter of vindictive behavior in a contested dissolution that did not go quietly into post divorce solitude. The appeal was taken, and the result is evident that no judge in this state may divide or allocate property before the trial date and clearly the same holds true after the decision has been rendered. Trial is the date and time to make all necessary demands, with specificity, so as to avoid this very costly and unsatisfying result. Timely post trial motions to clarify / articulate are vital in respect to resolving unanswered matters pertaining to real property division.
