Bolat v. Bolat, 182 Conn. App. 468

Parties divorced in 2011; separation agreement (incorporated into judgment) awarded father primary custody, provided no child support at dissolution, and required the parties to share "agreed upon" extracurricular expenses 50/50.
At dissolution each party filed financial affidavits; father reported low income and significant retained family debt; mother’s 2011 affidavit showed much lower reported income than later affidavits.
In 2013–14 mother moved to modify custody (denied); she filed a 2014 financial affidavit showing materially higher income than in 2011.
In Aug. 2014 father filed a motion to modify child support (citing a recent decision and his loss of employment) and attached a child support worksheet and financial affidavits. A March 2, 2015 hearing occurred on both the father’s modification motion and mother’s contempt motion for unpaid extracurricular expenses.
Trial court limited the modification inquiry to the father’s loss of employment, denied modification (finding no substantial change), and found the father in wilful contempt for failing to pay $847.99 (his share of extracurricular expenses).
Appellate court reversed both rulings: it held the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the increase in the mother’s income when deciding modification, and abused its discretion in finding the father in wilful contempt because the mother’s own testimony showed no agreement to the challenged expenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying father’s motion to modify child support for lack of a "substantial change in circumstances"	Bolat argued the court should have considered exhibits and current financial affidavits showing the mother’s increased income since the 2011 order	Mother (and trial court) treated the modification as limited to father’s loss of employment and contended no substantial change justified modification	Reversed: court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the mother’s increased income; remanded for further proceedings on modification
Whether the trial court properly found father in wilful contempt for not paying extracurricular expenses	Bolat argued section 4.3 applies only to mutually "agreed upon" expenses and mother’s testimony showed he never refused to pay any mutually agreed expense; thus contempt was not proved wilfully by clear and convincing evidence	Mother argued the separation agreement required 50/50 sharing and father failed to pay his share for listed activities	Order was clear and unambiguous, but contempt finding reversed: mother failed to prove wilful noncompliance and trial court abused its discretion in finding wilful contempt

O’Donnell v. Bozzuti, 148 Conn. App. 80 (Conn. App. 2014) (standard of review and modification procedure in family matters)
Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2013) (trial court’s discretion may be reversed if wrong legal standard applied)
Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300 (Conn. 2015) (indirect civil contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
Marshall v. Marshall, 151 Conn. App. 638 (Conn. App. 2014) (standards for contempt review and wilfulness requirement)
Mekrut v. Suits, 147 Conn. App. 794 (Conn. App. 2014) (inability to comply is a defense to contempt)
Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428 (Conn. 2014) (sworn financial affidavits are significant and courts may rely on them)