199 Conn.App. 67
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Parties divorced in 2014; separation agreement (incorporated into judgment) required defendant to pay $464/week child support, maintain child health insurance, and pay 100% of the child’s private elementary tuition through 5th grade.
- At entry of the agreement the child’s private school tuition was about $55,000/year; the child finished 5th grade in June 2016 and began public middle school that fall.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to modify child support (Dec. 2017), alleging a substantial change because the child left private school and defendant’s compensation had increased; defendant filed a competing motion (Oct. 2018) seeking a decrease based on plaintiff’s increased income.
- After a full hearing, the trial court found a substantial change in circumstances, held that the defendant’s tuition obligation’s termination freed significant disposable funds, and increased child support to $1,246/week (the presumptive guideline maximum), retroactive to Jan. 8, 2018.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) no substantial change occurred, (2) the increase was an improper wealth transfer that ignored the child’s needs, and (3) the court never ruled on his motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of defendant’s private‑school payment obligation is a "substantial change" under §46b‑86 | Flood: Ending the tuition obligation made ~$55,000/year newly available to defendant—a material improvement in his financial condition justifying modification | Flood: No substantial change because defendant’s net income did not increase; child support is based on net income, not how funds are spent | Court: Not clearly erroneous to find a substantial change; savings from the expired obligation are like newly available assets (comparable to inheritance or an award) and justify reconsideration |
| Whether raising support to $1,246/week was an improper wealth transfer/disguised alimony | Flood: Income‑shares principle supports increasing support so child receives comparable standard of living; requested the guideline maximum | Flood: The award ignored the child’s needs and effectively transfers wealth to the plaintiff | Court: No abuse of discretion—award is within guideline range (presumptive maximum for high incomes), court considered §46b‑84(d) criteria and evidentiary record; no further deviation explanation required |
| Whether the trial court erred by not ruling on defendant’s motion for modification | Plaintiff: Granting her motion effectively resolves the conflicting motion | Defendant: Court failed to rule on his motion and remand is required | Court: Granting plaintiff’s motion effectively denied defendant’s motion; defendant conceded it was effectively denied and did not raise a substantive challenge, so no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartlett v. Bartlett, 220 Conn. 372 (1991) (vesting of an inheritance that materially improves a party’s wealth can justify modification)
- Fabiano v. Fabiano, 10 Conn. App. 466 (1987) (substantial increase in assets from a personal injury award justified reconsideration of support)
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (2013) (guidelines treat $4,000 combined net weekly income as the presumptive floor; court must use guideline range and statutory factors for high‑income cases)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (warning against treating child support as disguised alimony; courts must justify deviations from guidelines)
- Kirwan v. Kirwan, 185 Conn. App. 713 (2018) (standard of review and requirement that factual findings on changed circumstances are upheld unless clearly erroneous)