Levine v. Levine

── Levine v. Levine ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 28, 2026 Author: Alvord Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Levine v. Levine ERIC LEVINE v. TRACY LEVINE (AC 48001) Alvord, Westbrook and DiPentima, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed following the trial court’s denial of his motion to open the dissolution judgment to allow discovery of the defendant’s allegedly fraudulent financial disclosure of the value of her share in her employer’s medical practice. The plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly deter- mined that he failed to establish a preliminary showing of probable cause concerning fraud and made erroneous findings of fact. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to open, as the plaintiff had failed to establish probable cause that the defen- dant had committed fraud to warrant discovery and further proceedings. The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant knew as untrue at the time of her financial disclosure that her interest in her employer’s medical practice was zero and that the defendant intended to cause his detrimental reliance on said disclosure. The trial court’s findings regarding whether the plaintiff read certain provisions in the defendant’s employment agreement and the defendant’s testimony as to whether the value of her share in her employer’s medical practice could be quantified at the time of the financial disclosure were not clearly erroneous, and any error was harmless. Argued January 5—officially released April 28, 2026 Procedural History Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court, Bozzuto, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and granting cer- tain other relief; thereafter, the court, Carrasquilla, J., denied the plaintiff’s motion to open the judgment, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Michael A. Lanza and, on the brief, Eric Levine, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). James M. Ruel, for the appellee (defendant).  Levine v. Levine Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Eric Levine, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to open the judgment dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Tracy Levine. On appeal, he argues that the court (1) improperly concluded that he failed to make a preliminary showing of probable cause concerning the existence of fraud and (2) made erroneous factual fi