184 Conn. App. 822
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Lisa and Kenneth Keusch were married in 1997 and have three minor children; divorce trial on financial issues concluded June 21, 2016.
- Trial court ordered Kenneth to pay $12,500/month as an unallocated alimony-and-support payment until death, remarriage, or November 3, 2025, and declared the amount and duration nonmodifiable.
- The attached child support worksheet listed defendant’s gross weekly income as $5,288 (≈$275,000/yr) and net weekly income $3,392 (≈$176,384/yr).
- On appeal, defendant argued the court (1) computed presumptive child support using earning capacity rather than actual income, and (2) abused discretion by making the unallocated award nonmodifiable.
- Trial court later articulated that the worksheet figures reflected defendant’s earning capacity. The appellate court ordered further briefing and considered relevant regulatory and precedent requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly computed presumptive child support | Plaintiff: court correctly considered earning capacity and deviations | Defendant: court improperly used earning capacity to set presumptive amount instead of actual income and failed to find guidelines inequitable | Reversed on child support calculation; court erred by using earning capacity without first calculating presumptive amount from actual income and making required inequity finding; remand for reconsideration of all financial orders (mosaic doctrine) |
| Whether unallocated alimony/support could be made nonmodifiable as to amount and term | Plaintiff: nonmodifiable order acceptable (conceded error on calculation but not on modifiability) | Defendant: nonmodifiable unallocated order improperly prevents reduction as each child attains majority | Court abused discretion: making the combined award nonmodifiable precludes modification when children reach majority; order vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Fox, 152 Conn. App. 611 (court must calculate presumptive support using actual income; earning capacity is only a deviation ground)
- Barcelo v. Barcelo, 158 Conn. App. 201 (mosaic doctrine: remand to reconsider all interrelated financial orders)
- Battistotti v. Suzanne A., 182 Conn. App. 40 (earning capacity is a deviation criterion; court must state presumptive guideline amount based on actual income before deviating)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (unallocated orders include a child-support component sufficient to satisfy guidelines)
- Hughes v. Hughes, 95 Conn. App. 200 (modification procedure for unallocated orders when child attains majority)
- Guille v. Guille, 196 Conn. 260 (parental duty to support children cannot be contractually limited; courts retain power to modify child support)
- O’Brien v. O’Brien, 138 Conn. App. 544 (remand appropriate where support calculation error impacts other financial orders)