Joseph Ferraolo v. Jill Ferraolo (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR ORDER (# 125)

The above matter went to judgment on October 12, 2009.   The parties entered into a Dissolution Agreement dated October 12, 2007 which was made a part of and incorporated by reference into the judgment of dissolution of marriage.

The judgment provides in paragraph 6 entitled “Life Insurance,” that each party was to maintain a life insurance policy which benefit would be conferred on the parties' minor children by the “creation of an irrevocable insurance trust.”   The court was not requested to retain jurisdiction over the provision.

The plaintiff has filed a post judgment motion (coded # 125) to have himself appointed as trustee.   The defendant had, it is alleged, died on December 18, 2012 and her executrix and trustee moves to intervene to oppose the plaintiff's motion (see motions coded # 126 and 127).   No prior motion to compel has been filed by either party regarding a trust or a motion for contempt of said life insurance provision of the judgment.   Prior superior court decisions have addressed a court's lack of authority to address issues arising from a final judgment when those issues were set before the court at the time of a decedent/party's death.   See Martineau v. Martineau, Superior Court, judicial district of Windham, Docket No. FA97 0055568S (December 27, 1999, Potter, J.) (26 Conn. L. Rptr. 550, 551);  Abel v. Abel, Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. FA93 0525646S (July 9, 1997, Booth, J.) The underlying premise is that dissolution of marriage actions are personal to the parties in nature and the death of a party terminates the matter.

The issue the court faces is the lack of continued jurisdiction over the life insurance trust.   At the time of the defendant's death, no motions were pending to enforce the life insurance provision of the judgment.   There has been no finding of a wilful contempt on the defendant's part.   There is a trust document or an exhibit of a trust in the divorce judgment.   Therefore, the plaintiff's motion is denied.

The Court

By Robert Malone, J.

Malone, Robert J., J.