162 Conn.App. 236
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Madeline and Michael Fazio divorced in 2006; their dissolution judgment incorporated a written separation agreement the court found fair and equitable.
- Article 3.2(a) required the defendant to pay unallocated alimony and child support "until the death of either party, the remarriage or cohabitation of the [plaintiff] pursuant to Section 46b-86 (b) . . . or May 31, 2013."
- Article 3.6 declared Article 3.2 non-modifiable as to amount and duration except for two narrow circumstances (plaintiff earning > $100,000; defendant unemployed 6 months).
- Defendant moved postjudgment under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-86(b) to modify or terminate payments, alleging plaintiff cohabitated and her financial needs changed; plaintiff filed contempt for nonpayment.
- Trial court found cohabitation under § 46b-86(b) and concluded the agreement unambiguously required immediate termination of alimony on cohabitation; judgment granted for defendant.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the separation agreement language ambiguous and directing the trial court to consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article 3.2(a) incorporated the remedial powers of § 46b-86(b) (permit court to suspend/modify) or instead triggered immediate, self‑executing termination upon cohabitation | "Pursuant to § 46b-86(b)" imports the statute in full, so court may exercise its remedial discretion to suspend/modify alimony | The word "until" is a term of limitation requiring termination; the statutory reference is only definitional, not remedial | Agreement language is ambiguous; trial court must consider extrinsic evidence and make factual findings about parties’ intent; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Nation-Bailey v. Bailey, 316 Conn. 182 (interpretation that "until" signals termination and "as defined by" imports only definitional aspects of § 46b-86(b))
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (separation agreements are contracts; ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (when contract ambiguous, parties’ intent is factual question requiring trial court findings)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (standard for plenary review on unambiguous contracts vs. clear error on factual findings for ambiguous ones)
- Kaplan v. Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387 (when decree silent on cohabitation, court may modify alimony under § 46b-86(b))
- Wichman v. Wichman, 49 Conn. App. 529 (incorporated agreement provisions that preclude modification can limit court's § 46b-86(b) powers)