Susan Gaudet v. Robert Gaudet (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION # 136

A review of the record reveals that the parties were divorced pursuant to a marital dissolution agreement dated February 25, 2010.   Pursuant to that agreement the parties agreed that “the wife will have the right to sole possession and assume the financial responsibility for real property located at 60 Nelkin Road, Colchester, Connecticut.”   Thereafter, the first mortgage and the second mortgage went unpaid by the wife and she was found in contempt on February 19, 2013.   The matter was then continued to April 22, 2013, May 28, 2013 and June 18, 2013.   In a memorandum of decision dated June 19, 2013(129) the parties were ordered to select a mutually agreeable realtor and place the home on the market for sale.   The wife refused to cooperate with listing the home for sale so on October 9, 2013, the court ordered the plaintiff to execute a quitclaim deed assigning her interest in the marital property to the defendant so that he could effectuate the sale of the house.

The defendant husband filed a motion for clarification (136).   The parties appeared before the undersigned on December 6, 2013.   The plaintiff wife's position is that as a result of her executing a quitclaim deed in favor of the defendant husband, she is no longer obligated under the dissolution judgment to pay the first and second mortgages, notwithstanding the fact that she continues to reside in the former marital residence.   The defendant husband's position is that the recent order that the plaintiff wife execute a quitclaim deed in favor of the husband so that he may effectuate the sale does not relieve her of the court order that she is still financially responsible for the mortgages pursuant to the judgment of dissolution.   The husband's position is correct.   In ordering the plaintiff wife to quitclaim to the husband her interest in the marital residence, the court left unchanged all other orders.   In fact, if the wife were relieved of her court ordered obligation to maintain the mortgages, such would be construed as an impermissible post judgment property modification.  “A court, therefore, does not have the authority to modify the division of property once the dissolution becomes final ․ Although the court does not have the authority to modify a property assignment, a court ․ does have the authority to issue postjudgment orders effectuating its judgment.”   Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn.App. 441, 446–7 (2010).

By way of clarification, the court order that the wife quitclaim the property to the husband left intact all other court orders.

BY THE COURT

Kenneth L. Shluger, Judge

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.