Horey v. Horey, 161 A.3d 579

Background

Marriage of ~43 years; most income over past 23 years derived from plaintiff Alan Horey’s sole‑member business, Professional Financial Services, LLC, which generates "trails income" (ongoing residual commissions).
Plaintiff’s recent gross annual income ~ $150,000; expects this to continue for ~2 years but plans to sell the LLC and retire, at which point trails income will transfer to purchaser.
Trial court dissolved the marriage and ordered plaintiff to pay alimony to defendant Joyce Horey of $1,000/week, but provided that alimony would terminate upon sale of the LLC; the court reserved jurisdiction and required any sale be arm’s‑length at fair market value with one‑half of net proceeds to defendant in parity with plaintiff’s receipt.
Defendant moved to reargue, arguing the termination‑upon‑sale provision was inconsistent with findings (she lacks ability to be self‑sufficient) and that plaintiff could structure the sale (e.g., post‑sale consulting fees) to evade providing her equitable share of retirement income.
After reargument, the trial court declined to modify the order, emphasizing that alimony remained modifiable under statute, set sale safeguards (inspection rights, advance notice, fair market sale), and retained jurisdiction to address any inequities at the time of sale. Appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by making alimony terminate upon sale of LLC	Alimony termination tied to an event (sale) that will produce proceeds shared equally; alimony remains modifiable and court retained jurisdiction to police sale	Termination inconsistent with findings that defendant cannot be self‑supporting; sale can be structured to shift proceeds into post‑sale consulting fees, evading defendant’s share and making award unreasonable	Affirmed — not an abuse of discretion; time‑limited/contingent alimony appropriate and modifiable; sale safeguards and retained jurisdiction protect defendant’s interests
Whether time‑limited/contingent alimony must be unsupported by future modification	Alimony order expressly did not preclude modification under § 46b‑86; trial court permissibly conditioned termination on sale	Defendant feared loss of retirement income if sale structured to avoid proceeds sharing	Held — because modification was left open and safeguards exist, contingent termination was permissible
Whether record supports link between alimony duration and plaintiff’s trails income/retirement plans	Plaintiff’s income structure and planned sale made alimony tied to duration of trails income	Defendant argued the link did not protect her from creative structuring by plaintiff	Held — record sufficiently supports court’s view that alimony related to duration/value of trails income and sale provisions protect defendant
Whether speculative future misconduct (e.g., consulting fees) invalidates the sale‑triggered termination	Court retained jurisdiction and set transactional rules (arm’s‑length, FMV, parity of payment form, inspection, notice) to address misconduct	Defendant argued speculation of future misconduct undermines present termination provision	Held — speculative concerns insufficient; protections and ability to seek modification at sale time address risk

Key Cases Cited

Finan v. Finan, 100 Conn. App. 297 (time‑limited alimony often awarded and may be tied to future events)
Mongillo v. Mongillo, 69 Conn. App. 472 (time‑limited alimony can provide interim support or stop upon future event; modification available)
Procaccini v. Procaccini, 157 Conn. App. 804 (standard of review for financial awards—abuse of discretion)
Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300 (purpose of alimony: maintain marital standard of living)
Hornung v. Hornung, 323 Conn. 144 (trial court must consider statutory factors in awarding alimony)
Wood v. Wood, 170 Conn. App. 724 (trial court given broad discretion in domestic relations financial orders)