Buehler v. Buehler
138 Conn. App. 63
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Dissolution of marriage case where marital home was ordered sold; defendant awarded sole occupancy and rental management; mortgage payments split between parties pending sale.
- 2008 modification granted to allow renting the marital residence to satisfy mortgage payments; tenancy and rent contemplated to benefit mortgage compliance.
- 2010 plaintiff sought modification to receive half of rental income retroactively and to reinstate immediate sale of the residence.
- 2011 trial court found plaintiff in contempt for mortgage payment arrearage; arrearage and attorney’s fees awarded; other contempt findings related to COBRA, deposits, and expenses.
- Court vacated rental-income allocation to defendant as explicit postjudgment property assignment; case remanded for recalculation of arrearage and related fees.
- Appellate rulings include review under §46b-86(a) and §46b-81 regarding non-modifiable property assignments; equity considerations guided remand
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postjudgment allocation of rental income was legally authorized | Buehler: improper postjudgment property assignment | Buehler agreed to rental arrangement; income allocation intended | Partial reversal; improper postjudgment property assignment vacated and remanded for income recalculation |
| Whether contempt finding for mortgage nonpayment was proper given rental-use of income | Mortgage payments were to be satisfied by rental income; ambiguity | Court clarity permitted contempt for nonpayment | Contempt reversed in part; remand for arrearage and fees calculation due to ambiguity |
| Whether denial of modification to sell immediately was an abuse of discretion | Court should have ordered immediate sale given market signals | Court acted within discretion given lack of evidence of feasible sale; market conditions unchanged | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. Beckenstein, 305 Conn. 523 (2012) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage; review is plenary)
- Lynch v. Lynch, 135 Conn. App. 40 (2012) (appellate review of judgment as a matter of law)
- Santoro v. Santoro, 70 Conn. App. 212 (2002) (§46b-86(a) limits modification of property assignments)
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685 (2007) (contempt requires clear and unambiguous court order)
- Roberts v. Roberts, 32 Conn. App. 465 (1993) (equitable power to protect judgment in domestic relations cases)