Eric P. Sousa v. Donna M. Sousa.

Summary

The court held that it was not entirely obvious that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to approve the parties' stipulated postdissolution modification of a pension distribution, because the Superior Court has general jurisdiction over family matters and Connecticut law was conflicted on whether the restriction was jurisdictional or merely statutory. It further held that finality principles barred the defendant's belated collateral attack because she had an opportunity to contest jurisdiction, knowingly consented to the modification, and no strong policy justified reopening the judgment. The judgment was reversed and remanded to the Appellate Court for further proceedings on the defendant's fraud-related claims. ESPINOSA, J., dissenting, would have held that the statutory bar on modifying property assignments made the jurisdictional defect entirely obvious and would have affirmed the order vacating the modification.