ROBERT S. WALTON, IV v. DEEPA B. WALTON, SC 21094

Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk

Dissolution; Property; Discovery; Whether Spouse in Divorce Action Was Required to Disclose to Other Party Appraisal of Marital Residence Spouse Had Obtained. The parties were married in 2003 and thereafter purchased real property in Greenwich on which they built the marital residence. In 2019, the plaintiff filed the present dissolution action against the defendant. Pursuant to a stipulated court order, the defendant remained in possession of the residence during the pendency of the action. In June, 2021, the plaintiff filed a disclosure of expert witness stating his intention to introduce at trial the testimony of a real estate broker, James B. Hoffman, who would testify that the fair market value of the residence at that time was $1,500,000. Shortly thereafter, the defendant disclosed James J. Tooher, a real estate appraiser, who would testify to a fair market value of $1,160,000. At trial, Tooher provided an updated appraisal of $1,265,000. The trial was subsequently continued to a later date. Prior to the resumption of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking access to the marital residence to permit an appraiser, Stephen Correll, to perform an appraisal of the property, which the court granted. Following the appraisal, the defendant served the plaintiff a request to produce Correll's report. At the next trial date, the plaintiff objected to the request for production on the ground that it was protected work product. He relatedly argued that, because he did not seek to call Correll to testify or introduce his report into evidence and the defendant had not demonstrated a need for it, it was not subject to disclosure under Practice Book § 13-4 (f), which governs the discoverability in civil actions of information held by another party's nontestifying expert. The defendant countered that the report was subject to disclosure because the plaintiff had not established that it was protected work product. The trial court ruled from the bench that it was persuaded by the plaintiff's position and declined to order the plaintiff to produce the report. The plaintiff proceeded to present the testimony of Hoffman as his expert witness. In its memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage, the court noted that Hoffman had testified at trial that the property's value had by that time increased to over $1.6 million and that Tooher had not provided an updated valuation. The court ultimately found the fair market value of the marital property to be $1.4 million and ordered that it be listed for sale and the proceeds split equally between the parties. On appeal to the Appellate Court (227 Conn. App. 251), the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied her request for production of Correll's report. In addition to disputing that the report constituted protected work product, the defendant argued that the trial court's ruling was contrary to a long-standing policy in favor of full and frank financial disclosures in divorce cases as embodied in such rules of practice as Practice Book § 25-32, which provides in relevant part that, "upon request by a party involved in an action for dissolution of marriage . . . opposing parties shall exchange [certain documents] within sixty days of such request" including "any written appraisal concerning any asset owned by either party." The Appellate Court declined to address the defendant's arguments, concluding that she could not prevail on her claim because she failed to address in her appellate arguments "the basis of the [trial] court's ruling, namely, that the appraisal was protected from disclosure by Practice Book § 13-4 (f)." Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court thereafter granted the defendant certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's determination that the plaintiff was not required to disclose Correll's report to the defendant.