Harlow v. Stickels
94 A.3d 706
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Trial court dissolved marriage and ordered alimony of $850 weekly for 10 years, $440 weekly child support, $1 million life insurance, and $15,000 annual income allowance for the plaintiff.
- Defendant later moved for modification claiming substantial change in circumstances due to unemployment; employment terminated and modification denied.
- Plaintiff filed motions to compel, for contempt and sanctions; defendant filed second motion for modification alleging new employment and lower income.
- January 15, 2013 order reduced child support to $382, alimony to $525, and life insurance to $750,000; plaintiff sought reargument.
- Appellate court sua sponte ordered trial court to articulate basis for substantial change in circumstances; court found $25,000 pay cut from $145k to $120k as substantial change.
- Appellate court reversed modification due to failure to include defendant’s auto allowance in income calculation; remanded to deny modification related to finances; affirmed other aspects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err by allowing plaintiff no opportunity to present evidence on motions? | Harlow claims court denied hearing on evidence. | Stickels contends plaintiff had ample opportunity. | No error; plaintiff had adequate opportunity. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in granting modification based on substantial change in circumstances? | Harlow argues no substantial change or miscalculation. | Stickels asserts changed circumstances warranted modification. | Court abused discretion; modification reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 104 Conn. App. 482 (2007) (standard for reviewing domestic-relations findings)
- Schade v. Schade, 110 Conn. App. 57 (2008) (substantial change in circumstances framework for modification)
- O’Donnell v. Bozzuti, 148 Conn. App. 80 (2014) (threshold requirement of substantial change before modification)
- Simms v. Chaisson, 277 Conn. 319 (2006) (properly review legal standards for income determinations in modification cases)
- Ciucias v. Valley Cab Co., Inc., 3 Conn. App. 468 (1985) (burden on appellant to show error and adequacy of record)
- Mihalyak v. Mihalyak, 11 Conn. App. 610 (1987) (record quality requirement on appellate review)