Dan v. Dan
137 Conn. App. 728
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- After 29 years of marriage, the couple divorced in 2000 with alimony set at $15,000 monthly plus 25% of the defendant's performance bonuses.
- In 2010, Mary Lou Dan filed a postjudgment motion to modify alimony under §46b-86(a) asserting significant income growth and medical cost concerns.
- The trial court found the defendant, Michael T. Dan, earned a base salary of $3.24 million in 2010 and $3 million in cash-ins from stock options, compared to $696,000 at dissolution.
- Mary Lou Dan had limited education and work history, with health issues and modest income; the court found substantial change in circumstances but not increase in medical costs.
- The court increased alimony to $40,000 per month (indefinite duration) and continued 25% of bonuses, applying §46b-82 factors with emphasis on marriage length, income, health, and vocational skills.
- Dan appealed, arguing abuse of discretion and improper consideration of factors; the appellate court affirmed the modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in increasing alimony and removing the durational limit. | Mary Lou argues the enhanced income and needs justify higher, ongoing support. | Dan contends there is no sufficient basis to raise alimony or remove the duration cap. | No; court did not abuse discretion and properly increased alimony. |
| Whether the court properly applied §46b-82 after finding a substantial change under §46b-86(a). | Mary Lou contends the §46b-82 factors were correctly applied to fashion a modification. | Dan argues only changed factors should guide modification. | Proper application of §46b-82 factors affirmed. |
| Whether the court erred by treating the same §46b-82 criteria as in initial award after substantial change. | Mary Lou relies on uniform application of modification criteria. | Dan challenges applying full §46b-82 set of factors post-change. | Correct to apply §46b-82 factors to modification after substantial change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarz v. Schwarz, 124 Conn. App. 472 (2010) (uniform application of §46b-82 factors after substantial change)
- Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729 (1994) (same criteria as initial alimony award applied to modification)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard in domestic relations)