While the defendant contends that his business did not maintain a ledger but that he complied with the court's final discovery order by providing copies of cancelled checks in lieu of check registers, we disagree. That deadline was subsequently extended to February 6, 1998. Even assuming this information partially satisfied the court's order, it was both untimely and of little use to the plaintiff in determining the value of the marital business. Accordingly, we find no merit in the defendant's assertion that his partial compliance should have insulated him from default. While the defendant also asserts that the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction, we disagree.
Sanctions are appropriate to deter litigants from disregarding discovery requests.
The defendant's failure to provide the plaintiff in a timely fashion with complete information that bore directly on the valuation of the marital business prevented the plaintiff from adequately preparing for trial. Given the defendant's repeated noncompliance with court orders and the extended discovery schedule previously established by the court, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in defaulting the defendant. The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony in an amount which exceeded the plaintiff's request and, after assigning an inflated value to a portion of the marital assets, by ordering an inequitable division of the total marital estate. In a divorce action, the trial court has broad discretion in determining an equitable distribution of the marital estate. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not overturn the decision of the trial court in matters involving alimony and property distribution.