Almeida v. Almeida

         Argued March 5, 2019

         Appeal from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Robert Nastri, J.

Page 29

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 30

          David R. Peck, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Brittany Wallace, for the appellant (defendant).

         Giovanna Shay, with whom, on the brief, were Ramona Mercado-Espinoza, Hartford, and Enelsa Diaz, for the appellee (plaintiff).

         Keller, Elgo and Bishop, Js.

          OPINION

         ELGO, J.

Page 31

          [190 Conn.App. 761] In this postdissolution matter, the defendant, Renato Almeida, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for clarification filed by the plaintiff, Cristiane M. Almeida. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly modified the dissolution judgment when it rendered its clarification.^[1] [190 Conn.App. 762] We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

         The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The parties’ marriage was dissolved on October 16, 2015. In its memorandum of decision, the court, Ficeto, J., found, inter alia, that "[t]he defendant acquired four properties during the course of the marriage. The property at 409 Sigourney Street, Hartford [property], is where the parties made their home and the defendant currently resides. It is a three family home; the defendant resides in one unit and rents two. [The defendant] listed the value of [the property] at $ 144,000 on his financial affidavit. He alleges [that] he is only a 50 percent owner of [the property] and that his business partner owns 50 percent through a business entity known as Talyah Home Improvement, LLC.... All properties were purchased with cash. Counsel for the plaintiff inquired how the defendant was able to acquire the ... properties with no loans or mortgages. [The defendant] testified that a sister brought him $ 100,000 from Brazil and that he used it as seed money for ‘flipping’ houses. He alleges [that] the money was his and that he had saved it in Brazil. He was unable to provide documentation relative to the $ 100,000. The defendant testified relative to his business entity, Talyah Home Improvement, LLC. There was no evidence introduced relative to either the limited liability [company] or its members. [The defendant] vaguely testified about his partner, who has been in Brazil for the past year. [The defendant] alleges that he deals with his partner’s ‘people.’ A review of the defendant’s tax returns for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 show[s] no schedules related to income from a business entity known as Talyah Home Improvement, LLC.^[2] ... The [190 Conn.App. 763] court does not find credible [the defendant’s] recitation relative to his financial affairs." (Footnote in original.)

          As part of its judgment of dissolution, the court ordered, inter alia, that "[t]he defendant shall forthwith vacate and quitclaim to the plaintiff all interest in [the property]. [The] [p]laintiff shall thereafter be responsible for all expenses relating to said [property], including, but not limited to, real estate taxes, insurance, and ...