200 Conn.App. 180
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Marriage dissolved April 1, 2016; judgment incorporated a separation agreement: plaintiff to reside at marital home (paying $1,000/month rent), nominal alimony ($1/year subject to modification), and child support terms; only one child was a minor during the postjudgment proceedings.
- Numerous postjudgment motions were filed between April 2016 and December 2017; the court ordered on January 24, 2018 that all pending motions be continued to a February 7, 2018 hearing.
- At the February 7, 2018 hearing the court addressed multiple motions, awarded the plaintiff $3,943.66 for septic repairs, ordered payment of various offsets, and granted the plaintiff increased alimony of $200/week (not made retroactive).
- The court also calculated a child support arrearage for the defendant of $5,351.66 for October 2017–February 2018 and declined to credit time when the minor child lived with the defendant.
- The defendant appealed, arguing (1) he lacked adequate notice to defend against the plaintiff’s motion to modify alimony, (2) the septic reimbursement order was an abuse of discretion and the plaintiff had unclean hands, and (3) the court should have applied Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-224 to suspend child support during the period the child was in his custody.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court on the notice and septic claims but reversed the child support arrearage calculation and remanded to determine the precise custodial period to be credited under § 46b-224.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was denied due process because court modified alimony without notice | Davis: motion to modify alimony was pending and court ordered all pending motions continued to Feb 7, 2018, giving adequate notice | Davis Sr.: motion was not scheduled for Feb 7 and he lacked notice/preparation time to defend and cross-examine | Court: Adequate notice—January 24 order continued all pending motions to Feb 7; defendant had opportunity to be heard; claim rejected |
| Whether court abused discretion ordering reimbursement for septic repairs and whether unclean hands barred relief | Davis: defendant was obligated by the dissolution judgment to maintain the home and must reimburse reasonable repair expenses | Davis Sr.: plaintiff blocked his attempts to repair and thus should be denied reimbursement under unclean hands | Court: Reimbursement within discretion (defendant had maintenance obligation); unclean hands claim unpreserved and meritless on record |
| Whether court erred by not crediting period when child was in defendant’s custody under § 46b-224 | Davis: arrearage stood because no motion to modify child support was filed; court properly required a motion | Davis Sr.: § 46b-224 automatically suspends support when custody is transferred to the obligor, so arrearage should be reduced for custodial period | Court: Reversed on this issue—§ 46b-224 suspends support when custody is transferred to obligor; trial court must credit/deduct the precise period on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Pritchard v. Pritchard, 103 Conn. App. 276 (notice required when modification not before the court)
- Styrcula v. Styrcula, 139 Conn. App. 735 (trial court must give clear notice before deciding modification issues)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (construction and effect of § 46b-224: custody change suspends or redirects support)
- Nappo v. Nappo, 188 Conn. App. 574 (trial court authority to enforce/ effectuate prior judgment and make parties whole)
- Tatoian v. Tyler, 194 Conn. App. 1 (remand appropriate where trial court did not determine precise custodial period to apply credit)