160 Conn.App. 103
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Hendricks and Haydu, never married, have four children; parenting agreement in 2011 and a 2011 judgment requiring $95 weekly child support.
- Plaintiff sought modification in 2012 due to defendant's employment change; trial occurred in 2013 with evidence from Hexcel HR witness Pierson.
- Plaintiff's compensation included base salary, MICP cash bonus, LTIP stock options, and deferred compensation; RSUs and PRSUs potential vesting were evaluated.
- Court calculated combined net weekly income from base salaries and applied a schedule to determine support, excluding explicit findings on bonus income.
- Plaintiff argued bonuses (MICP, LTIP, deferred compensation) should be included as gross income; defendant argued bonuses are not guaranteed and not available income.
- Appellate court reversed the modification order for failure to make findings on whether plaintiff’s bonus income was available for gross income calculation; remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's bonuses should be included in gross income for modification. | Plaintiff's bonuses are income and should be included. | Bonuses are not guaranteed and not available income. | Court abused by not determining availability of bonuses. |
| Whether the court properly applied the income shares guidelines given bonus/deferral elements. | Bonuses and deferred compensation must be considered as gross income under guidelines. | Evidence shows bonuses are indeterminate and not readily includable without proper findings. | Remand for findings on bonus availability; guidelines misapplied without such findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Fox, 152 Conn. App. 611 (Conn. App. 2014) (guidelines and income shares framework for child support)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (Conn. 2010) (relevance of fluctuating annual bonus income in gross income)
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2013) (determine portion of pass-through or deferred income available for support)
- Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 (Conn. 1998) (bonus income may be included if available for support)
- Gentile v. Carneiro, 107 Conn. App. 630 (Conn. App. 2008) (regulations define gross income; some income may be indeterminate)
- Harlow v. Stickles, 151 Conn. App. 204 (Conn. App. 2014) (reversal where trial court failed to consider specific income item)