152 Conn.App. 611
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 1989 the parties married; they have four children and a separation agreement (2005) governing alimony, child support, parenting and property division with Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1.
- The 2007 incentive bonus substantially increased the defendant’s assets and potential investment income; the plaintiff’s assets fell from about $23.4 million to about $15.4 million.
- The plaintiff moved in December 2009 to modify child support and alimony; hearings occurred in 2010 and the court issued memoranda and orders on March 29, 2011.
- The court ordered termination of the separation agreement provisions 3.1, 3.2, and 5.1; set child support at $6,963 per month per minor child; allocated education costs 83/17; and awarded $55,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.
- The defendant appealed arguing (i) the court erred by using imputed income instead of actual income and needs, (ii) attorney’s fees award was improper, (iii) the imputed rate of return on investment income lacked evidentiary support, and (iv) terminating accounts under articles 3.2 and 5.1 was improper; the appellate court agreed on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by using imputed income to calculate child support. | Fox | Fox | Yes; must base on actual income and demonstrated needs, deviation allowed only with explicit findings. |
| Whether awarding attorney’s fees was appropriate given assets. | Fox | Fox | Yes; appellate court held the award improper and reversed. |
| Whether the rate of return imputed on investment income had evidentiary support. | Fox | Fox | No; court abused discretion by imputing a rate with no evidentiary support. |
| Whether the court properly terminated the minor children’s custodial/trust accounts under 3.2 and 5.1. | Fox | Fox | No; court abused discretion as changes in circumstances did not justify termination. |
| Whether the case should be remanded or the orders severed given the interdependence of financial orders. | Fox | Fox | Remanded with instructions to reconsider in light of proper guidelines and deviations; severability considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (Conn. 2013) (guidelines apply with deviation criteria for high-income cases)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (Conn. 2010) (guidelines presumption and deviation framework; high assets context)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 280 Conn. 764 (Conn. 2007) (imputing ordinary rate of return; evidence sufficiency standard)
- Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665 (Conn. 2013) (standard of review for modification; mosaic of financial orders; substantial change required)
- Kavanah v. Kavanah, 142 Conn. App. 775 (Conn. App. 2013) (on-record findings for presumptive support amount; deviation criteria paperwork)