Hane v. Hane, AC36475

Parties divorced in 2008; their decree incorporated a settlement providing unallocated alimony and child support with a tiered structure tied to defendant Owen Hane’s fluctuating income.
In 2009 the court granted the defendant’s motion to decrease payments to $675/week after finding a substantial income decline.
Plaintiff Madelaine Hane moved to modify on June 16, 2011 (defendant served July 11, 2011), alleging a substantial increase in defendant’s income; a hearing followed.
On June 5, 2013 the trial court found defendant’s income had substantially increased and raised alimony and child support but denied making the award retroactive, calling retroactivity “unduly harsh.”
Plaintiff moved to reargue as to retroactivity; the court denied retroactivity again on December 30, 2013. Plaintiff appealed alleging abuse of discretion for refusing retroactive application to date of service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying retroactive modification of alimony/support to date of service of the motion	Hane: Zahringer and precedent favor retroactivity to the service date; denial was an abuse of discretion	Defendant: Trial court has discretion under §46b-86; retroactivity may be denied where inequitable or unduly harsh	No abuse of discretion; trial court properly exercised discretion and denial of retroactivity affirmed
Standard for determining retroactivity	Zahringer purportedly creates a bright-line test favoring retroactivity	Court discretion controls; no bright-line rule	Court rejects plaintiff’s reading of Zahringer; no exclusive factors established
Whether record supports review of discretionary denial without transcript	Plaintiff did not provide hearing transcript and did not seek articulation	Defendant asserts discretion and fact-bound decision; absence of transcript limits review	Court declines to speculate and notes record is inadequate to review factual basis fully
Whether statutory authorization requires retroactivity	Plaintiff argues law presumes retroactivity to date of service	Defendant notes statute says court "may" order retroactive modification, preserving discretion	Court emphasizes permissive statutory language and affirms discretionary denial

Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729 (explains modification compares current conditions to last court order)
Zahringer v. Zahringer, 124 Conn. App. 672 (trial court has discretion to craft equitable retroactive awards; no bright-line rule)
Shedrick v. Shedrick, 32 Conn. App. 147 (discusses limits on retroactive alimony absent legislative authority)
Lucas v. Lucas, 88 Conn. App. 246 (addresses retroactivity to service date in context of entitlement to increase)
Bartlett v. Bartlett, 220 Conn. 372 (source of language about making increase effective as of service date in appropriate cases)
Cannon v. Cannon, 109 Conn. App. 844 (reiterates appellate standard of review for domestic relations matters)