158 Conn.App. 201
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Parties married in 1994, two minor children; plaintiff (wife) part-time realtor with modest income; defendant (husband) employed in finance with salary $70,000 and potential discretionary bonus; trial in May 2013; judgment of dissolution November 5, 2013.
- Trial court imputed defendant earning capacity of $250,000 annually and set weekly child support of $512, ordered defendant to pay 15% of any future bonus as supplemental child support.
- Court declined to reserve jurisdiction to enter postsecondary educational support and made no notice on the record that such support could not be requested later.
- Judgment required parties to divide personal property by agreement within 30 days, and if they could not agree, to resolve disputes by binding arbitration appointed by the court (no voluntary arbitration agreement existed).
- Appellate court found multiple legal errors (child support/bonus order, failure to give §46b-56c(b)(1) notice re: postsecondary support reservation, and involuntary arbitration order) and remanded for reconsideration of all financial orders under the mosaic doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplemental child support: 15% of future bonus | Barcelo: court misapplied guidelines; order fails to specify gross vs net, lacks findings tying bonus award to children's needs, and permits "double dipping" given imputed income | Barcelo: (defendant) argued court could impute earning capacity and award supplemental percentage | Reversed: award improper — court failed to apply child support guidelines, did not state presumptive amount or justify deviation, left ambiguity (gross/net), and failed to relate bonus share to children's needs |
| Reservation of jurisdiction / postsecondary educational support | Barcelo: court erred by failing to notify parties it would not reserve jurisdiction or allow later filing per §46b-56c(b)(1) when both parties requested reservation | Barcelo: (defendant) court concluded insufficient evidence to reserve or enter postsecondary order | Reversed as to financials: court violated §46b-56c(b)(1) by not advising parties prior to rendering judgment; remand required to revisit educational support/reservation with proper notice |
| Arbitration of personal property disputes without agreement | Barcelo: involuntary arbitration is an improper delegation of judicial function absent a voluntary arbitration agreement | Defendant: trial court may direct arbitration to resolve disputes | Reversed: court may not compel arbitration absent a voluntary, court-approved arbitration agreement; ordering involuntary arbitration was abuse of discretion |
| Scope of remedy / remand of all financial orders (mosaic doctrine) | Barcelo: errors in child support, arbitration, and reservation notice infect the entire financial mosaic; all orders should be reconsidered | Defendant: some orders unrelated and should stand | Remanded: appellate court ordered reconsideration of all financial orders because errors were interdependent and could affect alimony, property division, etc. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (limits on supplemental bonus awards; child support percentages must follow guidelines absent justified deviation)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (applied Maturo to reject excessive percentage of bonus as supplemental support)
- Budrawich v. Budrawich, 156 Conn. App. 628 (2015) (trial court may not order parties to arbitrate absent a voluntary arbitration agreement)
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (2013) (discussion of child support guidelines in very high income cases and limits of judicial discretion)
- Brown v. Brown, 190 Conn. 345 (1983) (disapproval of disguised alimony via child support awards)