Jansen v. Jansen
2012 WL 1990475
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant appealed a trial court ruling denying modification of alimony under §46b-86(a).
- Court found no substantial change in circumstances due to retirement given defendant’s assets and conduct.
- Defendant’s financial trajectory advanced post-dissolution; assets commingled with new wife; large gifts to children and wife.
- Plaintiff sought to maintain alimony and insurance as per 1996 separation agreement; agreement allowed modification under §46b-86(a).
- Trial court determined any income drop from retirement was offset by defendant’s enhanced wealth and culpable asset transfers; no modification granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retirement constitutes a substantial change in circumstances | Jansen argues retirement reduced income warranting modification | Jansen contends retirement changes finances sufficiently for modification | No substantial change; culpable conduct negated modification |
| Whether defendant’s asset commingling and gifts bar modification | Commingle assets and gifts show ongoing inequity and inability to pay future alimony | Assets were his; no culpable conduct established | Culpable conduct found; modification not warranted |
| Whether reduction of life insurance was proper | Life insurance maintained as security; reduction may affect alimony | Reduction justified by court | Court erred on potential basis but not reversed; issue not sole basis for affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchione v. Sanchione, 173 Conn. 397 (1977) (culpable conduct can bar modification of alimony)
- Wanatowicz v. Wanatowicz, 12 Conn. App. 616 (1987) (inability to pay due to own fault defeats substantial change)
- Schade v. Schade, 110 Conn. App. 57 (2008) (trial court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Richard v. Richard, 23 Conn. App. 58 (1990) (burden to prove substantial change rests with movant)
- Simms v. Simms, 283 Conn. 494 (2007) (substantial change threshold before modification may be considered)
- Panganiban v. Panganiban, 54 Conn. App. 634 (1999) (affords consideration of ability to pay in setting alimony)