159 Conn.App. 805
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Parties divorced in 2011; their separation agreement (incorporated into the judgment) provided an unallocated monthly payment (alimony + child support) with detailed percentage-based caps and a stated maximum; alimony portion was nonmodifiable by the defendant but the plaintiff could seek modification for a substantial change in circumstances (with limits excluding defendant’s cohabitation and increases in her earnings up to $100,000).
- In 2012 the defendant moved to California; parties entered a postjudgment parenting plan making the plaintiff the primary residential custodian while preserving joint legal and physical custody; the parenting plan said nothing about child support.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to modify child support after the change in custody; without court permission he unilaterally reduced his combined unallocated payments from about $54,666/month to $20,000/month.
- Trial court found a substantial change in circumstances, reduced the unallocated payment to $20,000/month, and relied in part on defendant’s cohabitation and General Statutes § 46b-224 to find plaintiff not in willful contempt for unilaterally reducing payments.
- Appellate court concluded the trial court erred by (1) failing to segregate the original unallocated award into child support and nonmodifiable alimony before modifying; and (2) improperly relying on § 46b-224 to excuse unilateral suspension of any alimony component — therefore reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could modify an unallocated alimony/support award without first determining the portion attributable to child support | Plaintiff moved to modify support because custody changed; court may modify support for substantial change | Defendant argued the agreement made alimony nonmodifiable on certain grounds (including cohabitation) and court must first allocate the original unallocated award between child support and alimony before modifying | Reversed: court must determine what portion of original unallocated award was child support (modifiable) and what was nonmodifiable alimony before altering payments; court improperly relied on cohabitation to reduce alimony portion |
| Whether plaintiff’s unilateral reduction constituted contempt and whether § 46b-224 excused it | Plaintiff contended § 46b-224 (suspension/modify support on custody change) justified suspension of child support portion | Defendant argued the unilateral reduction violated a clear unallocated order and § 46b-224 does not justify suspending alimony or an unallocated obligation | Reversed and remanded: § 46b-224 applies only to child support; it does not authorize suspending alimony or excuse unilateral reduction of an unallocated order without prior allocation and court approval; contempt claim needs reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539, 46 A.3d 112 (2012) (trial court must identify child support portion of an otherwise nonmodifiable unallocated award before modifying)
- Loughlin v. Loughlin, 280 Conn. 632, 910 A.2d 963 (2006) (child support and alimony serve distinct purposes and must not be disguised)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 995 A.2d 1 (2010) (child support must reflect child’s needs and may not be used to disguise alimony)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370, 107 A.3d 920 (2015) (standards for civil contempt review: clarity of order and wilfulness)
- In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007) (order must be clear and unambiguous to support contempt)