185 Conn. App. 812
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Marriage dissolved in March 2010; judgment incorporated a separation agreement calling for defendant (Mark Becue) to pay $260/week child support tied to anticipated $205,000 annual income (deviation from guidelines).
- Defendant became unemployed late 2011, stopped paying support on Jan 1, 2012, later resumed at lower amounts based on his own recalculations without court approval; many postjudgment motions followed.
- Trial court (post-hearing) found a substantial change in circumstances, computed support and arrears for three time periods, granted the defendant’s modification motion in part, awarded plaintiff (Julie Becue) attorney’s fees ($50,000), denied plaintiff’s contempt motion re: 2012 self-help, but found defendant in contempt for nonpayment May–Aug 2015.
- Plaintiff cross-appealed arguing the court should have held defendant in contempt for repeated unilateral modifications (self-help).
- Appellate court reviewed: (1) whether the agreement/order was clear; (2) whether defendant’s conduct was wilful contempt or excused by good-faith misunderstanding; (3) evidentiary basis for the trial court’s net-income and guideline calculations; (4) attorney’s fees award; and (5) contempt regarding other alleged breaches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Becue) | Defendant's Argument (Becue) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant’s unilateral reduction/cessation of child support in 2012 constitute wilful contempt (self-help)? | Defendant wilfully violated a clear court order by stopping/reducing payments without court approval; contempt should be found. | He had a good‑faith basis to recalculate support under the contract language and relied on professional assistance, so his actions were not wilful. | Reversed trial court’s denial: agreement was clear; defendant’s repeated self‑help was wilful and contempt must be found; remanded for sanctions consideration. |
| Were the trial court’s net income findings and child‑support/arrearage calculations unsupported (improper reliance on updated software)? | Trial court relied on post‑trial/extra‑evidentiary software outputs and could not articulate figures; findings lack evidentiary support and require new hearing. | The court relied on tax returns, financial affidavits, and worksheets admitted at trial; using Judicial Branch software for calculations is permissible. | Affirmed: evidentiary record supports net income findings; use of software for arithmetic was not improper; Ferraro distinguished. |
| Was the court required to deviate from child‑support guidelines (continued deviation from prior agreement)? | Deviation was agreed at dissolution; shared custody and defendant’s prior concessions warranted continued deviation. | The dissolution court did not make the required on‑the‑record finding that guidelines would be inequitable; modification may be reconsidered under guidelines after substantial change. | Affirmed: trial court considered deviation, rearticulated reasons, and properly declined to deviate as inequitable to plaintiff. |
| Was the $50,000 attorney’s‑fee award an abuse of discretion? | Fees improper because defendant did not breach agreement. | Agreement authorizes fees for breach; trial court found defendant breached paragraph 5.1. | Affirmed: fee award proper under contractual attorney‑fee clause given defendant’s breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523 (court orders must be obeyed until modified)
- Ferraro v. Ferraro, 168 Conn. App. 723 (trial court reliance on worksheet not supported by evidentiary record may require new hearing)
- Behrns v. Behrns, 80 Conn. App. 286 (courts will not permit unilateral reinterpretation/self‑help to alter obligations)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (contempt requires clear and unambiguous order)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 181 Conn. App. 309 (standard for reviewing contempt: two‑step clear‑order legal inquiry then abuse‑of‑discretion on wilfulness)