Background
Howard Greenspan and Carrie Greenspan divorced in 2019. In 2024, Howard moved to open the dissolution judgment so he could obtain discovery on his claim that Carrie had fraudulently failed to disclose an ownership interest in Green Bella Consulting, Inc., during the divorce case.
At a preliminary hearing, Howard offered corporate filings showing that Carrie was listed as Green Bella Consulting’s chief executive officer in 2009 and as its prior CEO in 2011. He also relied on his belief that businesses associated with Carrie’s father were named in part for her and that her father would have given her an interest in them. Carrie denied owning an interest, receiving income from the businesses, signing the 2009 filing, or knowing about the companies.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the denial of the motion to open. The trial court applied the proper probable-cause standard for a request to reopen a dissolution judgment based on alleged fraud and did not require Howard to conclusively prove fraud. At that preliminary stage, the court could weigh evidence, assess credibility, and evaluate the exhibits.
Howard’s evidence did not establish probable cause that Carrie concealed an ownership interest during the dissolution proceeding. The filings at most suggested that she may have held a corporate officer role years before the divorce action began; they did not show an ownership interest during the relevant period. His remaining theories were speculation. Carrie’s testimony disputed the factual basis for the fraud claim rather than asserting an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof never shifted from Howard.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking postjudgment discovery for alleged fraud in a divorce case must first show probable cause to open the judgment.
- Probable cause permits the court to weigh evidence and credibility; it is not equivalent to accepting the movant’s evidence as true.
- Old corporate filings and unsupported inferences do not establish probable cause that a spouse concealed an ownership interest during the divorce.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the gatekeeping role of the probable-cause hearing before a final dissolution judgment may be reopened for fraud-related discovery. It protects finality while preserving a route to discovery when allegations are supported by evidence rather than suspicion.