Schoenborn v. Schoenborn
The enforcement of an antenuptial agreement was not rendered unconscionable by the increase in income and net worth of the defendant, who was completing her dental residency at the time of the marriage and, as stated in the 2010 Connecticut Supreme Court decision in Crews v. Crews, the "circumstances of the parties at the time of the dissolution of the marriage" were not so far beyond the contemplation of the parties as to render the agreement unconscionable. The pro-se plaintiff, Leszek Schoenborn, appealed from the trial court's judgment of dissolution raising multiple claims. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating parenting time between the parties. The court evaluated the testimony of the parties, family relations officer and a psychologist, all of whom recommended limiting the plaintiff to alternating weekend visitation with the children. The trial court was well within its discretion to credit the testimony of the guardian ad litem who remained privy to the changing relationship between the plaintiff and his daughters. The court's findings were supported by the record that the plaintiff's parenting time changed during the action because the plaintiff was spanking his daughters and they no longer wanted to stay with him overnight. The plaintiff was not spanking his son. He stated that his son never lied or did anything bad to the girls but the girls were bullying the son. The record also substantiated the trial court's conclusion that the parties' antenuptial agreement was not unconscionable. When executed, the plaintiff had $1.5 million in assets compared to the defendant's $1000 in assets. At the time of dissolution, the plaintiff's assets had grown to approximately $2 million and the defendant's assets totaled to $1.5 million. When the parties married, the defendant was beginning her career as a dentist and the subsequent increase in her net worth was contemplated by the plain terms of the agreement. It was not insignificant that the plaintiff increased his own net worth by a half million dollars over the 10 year marriage. The trial court's findings that the parties abided by the agreement's terms and kept their assets and debts separate, even executing promissory notes when money was loaned between them, were supported by evidence in the record.