Opinion
HHDFA176082712S
09-05-2018
Jennifer MCCALLISTER v. Qassem KISHAWI
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Nguyen-O’Dowd, J.
A hearing was held on August 8, 2018 with respect to the above motion filed by the plaintiff. The parties were the only witnesses to testify.
FINDINGS
The defendant moved to the United States in 1998. The following year, in 1999, he began sending money to his family in Syria. He sent money periodically and the amount varied from year to year. The defendant sent money out of concern for his family’s survival in Syria. In 2011, after the civil war in Syria began, the defendant increased the amount of money he sent to his family up to threefold. The reason for the increased amount included the inflated cost for medication, food, clothing, shelter and in particular, for his elderly parents to pass through checkpoints with monetary bribes.
The parties married on October 26, 2008. Following the Syrian civil war in 2011, the plaintiff was aware that the defendant sent money to his family in Syria. On other occasions, both the defendant and plaintiff would visit the defendant’s family in England. During these visits, the defendant would give his mother $10,000 to $20,000. Other times, the defendant sent money by wire transfer. The plaintiff also volunteered to send money by wire transfer to Syria when the defendant was unable to because he had reached his limits with a previous wire transfer. The defendant would then repay the plaintiff. Prior to March 2018, the plaintiff believed that the annual amount ranged from $10,000 to $15,000 a year. It was not until the March 2018 deposition that the plaintiff learned that this amount was more. In his financial affidavit, the defendant listed a $1,730 weekly expense as financial assistance to his families. On November 10, 2016, the defendant sent a wire transfer to his brother in the amount of $76,452 for the purpose of assisting his family in Syria.
II
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief by way of an order from the court to prevent the defendant from continuing to sending money to his family in Syria in violation of the automatic orders pursuant to Practice Book § 25-5. It is important for the court to clarify that the plaintiff’s motion is not a motion for contempt, nor is this court making any findings related to conduct by a party which would amount to the dissipation of marital assets. The court was clear during the hearing that any claim made by a party regarding the dissipation of marital assets would be addressed by the trial court when judgment entered for the dissolution of the marriage. The limited scope before this court is whether the defendant’s conduct, specifically, sending money to his family in Syria, violates the automatic orders or falls within the "usual course of business" exception pursuant to Practice Book § 25-5(b)(1).
Practice Book § 25-5(b) provides in relevant part: "(1) Neither party shall sell, transfer, exchange, assign, remove, or in any way dispose of, without the consent of the other party in writing, or an order of a judicial authority, any property, except in the usual course of business or for customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorneys fees in connection with this action." (Emphasis added.)
In O’Brien v. O’Brien, 326 Conn. 81, 161 A.3d 1236 (2017), the Court clarified the meaning of "usual course of business." "[W]hether a particular transaction has been conducted in the usual course of business presents a question of fact, to be determined by looking to the circumstances of each case ... Whether a transaction is conducted in the usual course of business does not turn solely on the type of asset or transaction but on whether the transaction at issue was a continuation of prior activities carried out by the parties before the dissolution action was commenced." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) O’Brien v. O’Brien, supra, 115. The Court also did not limit the term to apply only in circumstances connected to a party’s business or profession. Instead, the Court noted that "because the automatic orders are intended to maintain the status quo between the parties, the exception would appear to extend to personal transactions, but only if any such transactions are conducted in the normal course of the parties’ ordinary activities, such that both parties would fully expect the transactions to be undertaken without prior permission or approval." Id., 115 n.12.
It is undisputed that it was the defendant’s usual course of business to send money to his family in Syria. The plaintiff knew this and she herself volunteered to assist. The defendant’s actions are not in dispute; however, the amount which he sent is disputed. The plaintiff believed that the annual amount did not exceed $20,000. The defendant neither hides the fact that he sent more than this amount or that he did not tell the plaintiff. Due to their separate finances, the plaintiff would not have readily known that the defendant increased the amount of money that he sent to his family unless she asked him or the information was voluntarily provided to her by the defendant. Neither of these situations happened until the March 2018 deposition when the plaintiff received the defendant’s financial affidavit and banking statements. Upon receipt, the plaintiff learned for the first time that the defendant sent significantly more money than what she believed.
There is also no reasonable expectation that the defendant will receive any repayment from his family. The matter is scheduled for a trial commencing on November 15, 2018. In an effort to maintain the status quo of the assets between the parties until the trial, the court limits the defendant’s sending to $20,000 per year to his family in Syria unless there is express permission from the court. To set no limit or restraint on the defendant would be in direct contradiction to the legislative purpose of the automatic orders, especially in light of the defendant’s position that the plaintiff’s knowledge as to the amount should not be a consideration for this court.
The defendant has already sent $20,000 in the 2018 calendar year through a wire transfer for $10,000 on April 20, 2018 and June 15, 2018.
III
ORDERS
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is denied in part. The court finds that the defendant’s conduct- sending money to his family in Syria- falls within the usual course of business exception to the automatic orders; however, the amount in excess of $20,000 per year was not known by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court limits the annual amount to $20,000 per year.
SO ORDERED.