Court Opinion

ID: 9645606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:29:47.91669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:29.845949
License: Public Domain

Bogdanski, C. J.
(dissenting). The presumption that the parties intended that all expenditures made after the separation would continue to accrue for the benefit of both parties without any future accounting is rebuttable. Here, the court found that the parties intended that money spent by the defendant subsequent to November 5, 1977, would be solely for his benefit.
Since this conclusion is not “clearly erroneous”; Practice Book § 3060D; the trial court cannot be *339reversed on this point. There is evidence, in the November 5, 1977 contract, to support the trial court’s conclusion. This is not a case where the trial court had before it the single fact that the plaintiff vacated the family home. We have, in addition, a signed writing formally stating that the parties intended that they would henceforth be independent from one another. The agreement states, in part: “[U]pon the signing and completion of this agreement, each of us will be independent from one another .... Our liabilities from one another will be and must be completely separate.” Even though the defendant later breached the contract, it is still operative to show the intent of the parties on November 5, 1977.
I therefore dissent.