Clelford v. Bristol
90 A.3d 998
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Marriage of Clelford and Bristol in October 2004; they have one child and dissolved on January 17, 2012, with the separation agreement incorporated into the judgment; the agreement provided for joint legal custody and primary residence with the plaintiff and a provision for a de novo parenting plan review when the child enters kindergarten.
- Article III of the separation agreement required the defendant to pay $1,575 per month for child support until the child is 18 (or 19 if still in high school) and to share unreimbursed medical expenses; the defendant also was to pay for the child’s medical insurance premiums.
- Article IV barred alimony payments between the parties.
- On February 5, 2013, the defendant moved to modify child support and the parenting plan, arguing lack of guideline deviation findings and that deviation at dissolution was inappropriate.
- On April 3, 2013, the trial court denied nearly all relief, granting only a de novo hearing on the parenting plan; on May 9, 2013, the court denied the motion for reconsideration.
- The defendant appealed on May 29, 2013, but the court affirmed due to an inadequate brief and record, declining to review the merits of the modification claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of modification was proper given inadequate briefing/record. | Clelford argues Bristol’s challenge relies on pre-judgment events without adequate briefing. | Bristol contends the court erred by not applying Child Support Guidelines and by failing to make required deviation findings. | The claim is not reviewable due to inadequate brief/record; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corrarino v. Corrarino, 121 Conn. App. 22, 993 A.2d 486 (2010) (abandoned because appellate brief insufficient guidance on issue)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bertrand, 140 Conn. App. 646, 59 A.3d 864 (2013) (claims about motions to compel discovery abandoned when not briefed)
- Nowacki v. Nowacki, 129 Conn. App. 157, 20 A.3d 702 (2011) (adequate briefing required to review trial court rulings on dissolution matters)
- Keating v. Ferrandino, 125 Conn. App. 601, 10 A.3d 59 (2010) (emphasizes briefing and record requirements on appeal)
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194, 61 A.3d 449 (2013) (guidelines and presumption in child support; need specific findings to rebut presumption)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358, 999 A.2d 721 (2010) (affirms need for statutory criteria in support determinations)
- Shaulson v. Shaulson, 125 Conn. App. 734, 9 A.3d 782 (2010) (overruled Bee on worksheet requirement for guidelines)
