Culver v. Culver
127 Conn. App. 236
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- In 1994, dissolution judgment incorporated a stipulation: defendant to pay $2500/month child support ($1250 per child) and plaintiff to have sole custody with private school consent; the stipulation stated no modification unless in writing.
- An unexecuted amendment in 1996 proposed raising child support to $3500; it was not witnessed or executed as required and never became an order.
- In 1998, parties orally agreed to modify support: defendant would pay private school/college expenses; he stopped paying $2500/month child support, paying schools instead.
- From 1998 to 2006, defendant paid private school expenses but ceased support; by 2006 the children began college, and defendant refused college payments for one child; plaintiff borrowed to cover that cost.
- August 2006 and May 2007 contempt motions were filed by plaintiff; defendant answered with cross-claims and asserted defenses (equitable estoppel, waiver, laches) related to the private-school payments.
- Trial court held the oral agreement did not modify the court-ordered stipulation, awarded $225,000 past-due child support, denied credit for private-school payments, and awarded $25,000 in attorney’s fees to plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court’s order create a modification of child support? | Arrearage reflects nonpayment; court acted within enforcement, not as new modification. | Credit for private-school expenditures improperly reduces or retroactively modifies the support order. | Not a modification; arrearage enforced under existing order. |
| Was equitable estoppel properly applied to bar relief or credit? | Equitable estoppel not barred; defendant failed to prove detriment from reliance on oral agreement. | His reliance and position shift justified estoppel/credit for payments. | Equitable estoppel did not bar relief; no detriment shown; no improper credit awarded. |
| Was there unjust enrichment by plaintiff or credit against arrearage? | Defendant’s payments did not excuse arrears; plaintiff was not unjustly enriched. | Plaintiff benefited from his private-school payments and should reduce arrears. | Plaintiff not unjustly enriched; no error in denying credit against arrearage. |
| Was attorney’s fees award proper under 46b-87 given no contempt finding? | Dissolution judgment authorized fees when nonprevailing party in related proceedings. | No contempt finding; 46b-87 not applicable. | Fees proper under dissolution judgment’s fee-shifting provision; alternate basis affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guss v. Guss, 1 Conn.App. 356 (1984) (trial court cannot modify child support orders on its own initiative)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523 (1998) (general rule that court orders remain until modified or challenged)
- Behrns v. Behrns, 80 Conn.App. 286 (2003) (modification principles and judicial discretion)
- Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713 (2001) (modification and contempt principles in family matters)
- Riscica v. Riscica, 101 Conn.App. 199 (2007) (estoppel elements and due diligence in ignorance contexts)
- Fuller v. Fuller, 119 Conn.App. 105 (2010) (broad discretion to make whole a party in contempt context)
- Albrecht v. Albrecht, 19 Conn.App. 146 (1989) (decrees cannot be modified by acts of the parties without court order)
- Cleveland v. Cleveland, 161 Conn. 452 (1971) (trial court may direct private-school payment based on circumstances)
- Hardisty v. Hardisty, 183 Conn. 253 (1981) (considerations for private-school directives)
- Celentano v. Oaks Condominium Assn., 265 Conn. 579 (2003) (estoppel principles and good faith diligence)
- Novella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 163 Conn. 552 (1972) (principles on estoppel and reliance in insurance contexts)
- Currie v. Marano, 13 Conn.App. 527 (1988) (due diligence and estoppel considerations)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (2010) (ambiguities resolved in favor of supporting judgment)
- Berglass v. Berglass, 71 Conn.App. 771 (2002) (attorney’s fees in contempt context; §46b-87 discretion)
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (2003) (contempt and fee-shifting standards)
- Dobozy v. Dobozy, 241 Conn. 490 (1997) (attorney’s fees under 46b-62; factors for discretion)
- Esposito v. Esposito, 71 Conn.App. 744 (2000) (context for contempt and related fees)