LaFrance v. Lodmell

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court considered consolidated appeals arising from a marital dissolution action involving a prenuptial agreement and its arbitration provision. The court held that General Statutes § 46b-66 (c) applies to arbitration agreements contained in prenuptial agreements, affirmed the limitation of arbitration to the sale of the parties’ residence, and upheld the denial of the defendant’s request to amend his pleadings to assert additional claims. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Holdings

1. Section 46b-66 (c), which governs arbitration agreements in dissolution actions, applies to an arbitration agreement contained in a prenuptial agreement, regardless of when the agreement was executed.
2. The trial court properly applied § 46b-66 (c) and the prenuptial agreement by limiting arbitration to the sale of the residence and related proceeds and by refusing to submit claims for damages that were barred by the agreement.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant leave to amend because the request was untimely, would have caused delay and prejudice, and concerned complex claims that could be pursued, where appropriate, in a separate civil action.
4. The arbitrator did not exceed her authority because the submission was unrestricted and the challenged awards concerning residence expenses, interest, attorney's fees, household expenses, and return of personal property conformed to the submission.

Questions Presented

1. Whether General Statutes § 46b-66 (c) applies to an arbitration agreement contained in a prenuptial agreement.
2. Whether the trial court properly applied § 46b-66 (c) to limit arbitration to issues concerning the sale of the residence and to exclude damages claims barred by the prenuptial agreement.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant leave to file an amended answer and cross complaint asserting interspousal contract, tort, statutory, and equitable claims.
4. Whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of the submission by awarding residence-related expenses, interest, attorney's fees, household expenses, and procedures for returning personal property.

Disposition

affirmed