Anthony J. Armentano

The case concerned whether a Connecticut taxpayer engaged in the securities trading business could exclude dividend income from the state capital gains and dividends tax when that income was offset by federal business expense deductions for interest paid on loans used to acquire the securities, resulting in no net dividend income reported on the federal return. The court held that the dividends remained taxable under General Statutes § 12-506(a) at the full gross amount, without reduction for the federal deductions. It reasoned that the statutory phrase 'dividends taxable for federal income tax purposes' incorporates the federal definition of gross dividend income under the Internal Revenue Code but does not incorporate unrelated federal deductions or adjustments that reduce the amount actually taxed federally, particularly since the Connecticut statute refers to dividends rather than 'net' dividends and treats such income separately from business expenses. The court distinguished this from deductions directly tied to capital gains calculations and rejected the taxpayers' reliance on the reporting format on federal Schedule C.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute between family members over ownership of residential property at 250 Kenyon Street in Hartford, Connecticut. The plaintiffs, who had lived in the home since 1966, claimed a beneficial interest via a resulting trust, alleging they effectively paid the purchase price through loans and mortgage arrangements while the defendants held title. The defendants, the plaintiffs' siblings, maintained that they acquired the property as an investment and to provide housing for the family, with any payments from the plaintiffs treated as rent. The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding they failed to prove payment of the purchase price or the existence of a resulting trust. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the conclusion that no resulting trust arose because the defendants' acquisition was motivated by providing a family home and investment benefits rather than holding title for the plaintiffs.

propertyfamily law

The case addressed whether an auto insurer could obtain full reimbursement, without any deduction for attorneys' fees, of no-fault basic reparations benefits it had paid to insureds who later settled personal injury claims against third parties. The court ruled that the insurer was entitled to full reimbursement of the benefits paid and that no proportionate share of the clients' legal fees or costs needed to be deducted. It reasoned that the pre-1980 version of General Statutes § 38-325(b) already provided for reimbursement whenever a claimant 'recovers damages,' a phrase that encompassed settlements as well as judgments, and that the 1980 amendments expressly confirming settlements and adding a fee-sharing deduction were either clarifying or newly enacted and thus not retroactive to the events at issue.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a marital dissolution decree after the parties had reached and the trial court had orally approved an oral settlement agreement covering alimony, custody, child support, visitation, property division, and related matters. The trial court later modified the agreement in its written decree by changing the beneficiary of the defendant's annuity from the three children to the minor daughter only and by adding an order requiring the defendant to pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the family home until its sale. The appellate court held that once the trial court approved the fully integrated agreement after notice and a hearing, it was bound by its terms and could not unilaterally modify or augment them without providing the parties due process through proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court therefore found error in part, set aside the judgment, and directed that it be modified to restore the original annuity beneficiaries and limit the defendant's post-vacancy expense obligations to the period until he vacated the premises. The claim regarding appellate counsel fees was not properly before the court because the defendant failed to amend his appeal as required by court rules.

family lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a trial court's orders in a marital dissolution action after a 23-year marriage ended due to irretrievable breakdown. The trial court awarded the defendant wife custody of the parties' minor child and ordered the plaintiff husband to convey his interests in three jointly owned residential properties (including the family home and rental/investment properties) to her, in exchange for a $21,000 non-interest-bearing promissory note secured by a mortgage that would be reduced monthly to account for child support arrearages and ongoing obligations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its broad discretion under Connecticut statutes to equitably divide marital assets based on factors including the parties' contributions, conduct during the marriage, and financial needs, and that the custody determination was supported by evidence of the child's best interests without requiring a family relations report or explicit consideration of the child's wishes. The court distinguished property assignments from alimony but confirmed that such awards could address support obligations.

family lawproperty

The case concerned Jonathan Miller's conviction for assault in the first degree after he shot an unarmed former boyfriend of his girlfriend outside a Connecticut mall in 1977; Miller admitted the shooting but claimed it was accidental or justified by self-defense. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's jury instructions on the elements of self-defense and specific intent, as well as evidentiary rulings permitting impeachment via a prior felony conviction and cross-examination about prior gun ownership. The court ruled that the jury-instruction claims had not been properly preserved at trial through timely exceptions and did not meet the narrow criteria for exceptional appellate review of unpreserved constitutional issues, rendering them waived. It also addressed the evidentiary claims but found no reversible error in the trial court's handling of them. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure