Connecticut Supreme Court May Open The Door For Protracted Divorce Litigation

By Christina Rentz

Published on September 29, 2005

In June 1998, Luke Weinstein appealed a family court ruling that required him to pay his ex-wife a $100,000 property settlement in addition to alimony and child support. Mr. Weinstein claimed the judgment would bankrupt him.

What Mr. Weinstein did not disclose to the family court was that, on the exact day his motion was heard, his company received a $2.5 million selling offer. Although Mr. Weinstein rejected this offer as too low, he accepted a $6 million offer to sell a few weeks later. His share was $1.45 million.

After the sell of the company, Mr. Weinstein's former wife, Nancy, appealed the divorce decree, claiming her former husband failed to disclose the true value of the software company he owned. However, Mr. Weinstein maintained that he abided by Connecticut law, which requires divorcing spouses to disclose all assets up to the time of the final dissolution judgment.

Nancy Weinstein won her appeal by a narrow margin of 3-2. In the majority opinion, judges stated that, according to Connecticut state law, the duty to disclose persists until the family court judge officially dissolves the marriage. Because Luke Weinstein filed a motion after the divorce decree was issued, the dissolution of the marriage was not finalized until the court ruled on his motion. Therefore, he had a responsibility to disclose his company's purchase.

While some legal experts fear this ruling may have far-reaching effects on future divorce litigation, other experts say this ruling simply clarifies what is meant by a "finalized" dissolution judgment.

Comment on this article →