Due to the unique nature of the marital relationship, Connecticut law places an absolute legal duty on a divorcing spouse to share all information with the other litigant in divorce proceedings about assets, property and income. A litigant who breaches that duty may find themselves liable for significant counsel fees the other party incurs in the pursuit of compliance.
Full asset disclosure necessary for fair property division
Every Connecticut divorce litigant must provide detailed, comprehensive information about their money, assets and property to their soon-to-be ex-spouse and to the Connecticut family court throughout the proceedings. Connecticut Practice Book, Rules for the Superior Court, Rule 25-30 et seq, 25a-15 et seq (2024). Only with an accurate picture of the size, nature and value of the marital estate – which in our state includes property owned jointly or singly by either spouse – can a judge craft an equitable distribution of property between the litigants.
Noncompliance can force the other side to incur significant legal expenses
Unfortunately, there are times when a divorce litigant actively tries to hide their wealth or otherwise make it difficult for their spouse to procure information about it. For example, the noncompliant party may flout mandatory-disclosure rules to:
- Comply with automatic court orders requiring initial disclosures.
- Respond appropriately to discovery requests.
- Update the record proactively as their estate changes during the proceedings.
A dishonest spouse may try to conceal assets or withhold information about money, investments, realty, business interests, foreign holdings, intangibles like cryptocurrency, retirement assets, valuable personal property and collectibles, and other assets. Or they may simply refuse to respond to valid discovery requests or even court orders.
This obstructive behavior may force the other side to conduct complex investigations, forensic accountings and extra discovery. To compel adequate responses to legitimate discovery requests such as for depositions, admissions, documents, interrogatories and other investigative vehicles, the other litigant’s counsel will likely require considerable, extra time and effort. For example, they must request orders to compel compliance with ignored discovery requests or to correct those that are incomplete or misleading.
Attorney’s fees can quickly and excessively escalate for a litigant wronged by discovery misconduct. This is especially true in a high-net-worth divorce where valuable assets may be complex, intangible, hidden, situated overseas, secret, wrongly gifted or transferred outside the marriage, or difficult to evaluate.
Ramin v. Ramin
In Connecticut divorce proceedings – in addition to other potential sanctions – there can be grounds to recover attorney’s fees for abusive refusal to cooperate in discovery and asset disclosure, particularly when a litigant displays bad faith, extreme resistance or callousness.
In Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (2007), the Connecticut Supreme Court expanded an exception in matrimonial cases to the “American Rule” that otherwise would require each litigant to pay their own legal fees absent a law or contract to the contrary. Rousseau v. Perricone, 148 Conn.App. 837 (2014).
Pre-Ramin jurisprudence
Connecticut statute allows the court in divorce proceedings to order a spouse-litigant to pay the other litigant’s reasonable legal fees. CT Gen. Stat. sec. 46b-62. The judge must consider their relative “financial abilities” and the factors relevant to an alimony decision:
- Marriage length
- Reasons for divorce
- Ages and health of the litigants
- Each litigant’s submitted evidence
- Each litigant’s “station, occupation, … income, earning capacity, vocational skills, education, employability [and] estate …”
- Each litigant’s needs
CT Gen. Stat. sec. 46b-82.
Previous cases had focused on “respective financial abilities” in refusing to order a litigant to pay the legal fees of the other if that party had the financial means to pay them. Even when one party could cover their own attorney’s fees, the court had the authority to order the other litigant to pay them if other financial orders in the case were undermined.
These cases did not necessarily involve any discovery or disclosure misconduct, however.
Egregious behavior influenced Supreme Court to expand grounds for legal-fee recovery
Ramin involved extensive obstruction and abuse of the discovery and information-sharing processes. The husband-litigant refused to fully comply with the wife’s legitimate requests for financial records over three years of litigation. Her attorneys had to make voluminous, repetitive requests for documents and other information as well as file motions asking the court to order compliance and to find the husband in contempt of court.
But court orders to comply, various sanctions and a mediated agreement did not impact the husband’s unwillingness to participate meaningfully.
The marital property of which he was in exclusive control was particularly difficult to uncover. He moved to Europe and had money or property in at least two countries. The court found that he made wrongful transfers of assets to third parties to hide them from the wife. The wife alleged fraudulent transfers of money to a paramour allegedly to invest into a company. The legal fees expended to trace assets internationally were of course exorbitant.
Spousal relationships are like those of fiduciaries
The Ramin court noted that the bad-faith aspect of the husband’s behavior conflicted with the nature of the marital relationship. Our courts require “full and frank mutual disclosure in marital cases” because the relationship is analogous to that of fiduciary and beneficiary. A fiduciary relationship is one of trust in which each party protects the other and does not focus on their own interests, “compel[ing] full disclosure.”
Egregious litigation misconduct creates a tipping point
Considering these extreme facts, the Supreme Court eliminated the rule that legal fees were not reimbursable if the receiving litigant could already pay them. The “innocent party” spent voluminous sums of money to obtain information that was rightfully hers to review.
After Ramin, courts would have discretion to “award attorney’s fees due to the egregious litigation misconduct [alone] of the other party when the trial court’s other financial orders have not adequately addressed that misconduct.” Ramin (emphasis added).
Ramin addresses the “wrongdoing” of a divorce litigant who “is flouting those [discovery] rules” when other court orders have not adequately righted these wrongs. The trial court had said that the husband’s “misconduct permeated the entire case.”
Subsequent cases have fine-tuned this holding. Ramin fee awards are limited to egregious discovery misconduct in family cases based on the heightened duty to disclose in the fiduciary relationship between spouses. Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (2012); Duart v. Department of Corrections, 303 Conn. 479 (2012). In addition, the discovery misconduct must be flagrant and repeated. Ferraro v. Ferraro, 2013 WL 4873455 (unpublished 2013).
Experienced Connecticut family law counsel can answer questions and provide strong advocacy for a divorcing party either facing issues of obstruction in discovery or who finds themselves accused of such litigation behavior.