185 Conn. App. 713
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties: Chelsea Chapman Kirwan (plaintiff) and Dr. Laurence Kirwan (defendant); married 2001, three minor children (two twins; one child with special needs).
- Parties agreed to binding mediation/arbitration for many dissolution issues (alimony, property division), but both the arbitration agreement and statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-408) reserved child custody and child support to the Superior Court.
- Arbitrator found defendant’s annual gross income was "approximately $400,000" while resolving alimony and property; award was incorporated into the dissolution judgment but expressly reserved child support to the court.
- After evidentiary hearings, the trial court found defendant’s gross annual income was $560,637 (composed of $400,000 employment income + $160,637 rental income), ordered child support of $1,500/week retroactive to the dissolution date, and credited voluntary payments by temporarily reducing future obligations over one year.
- Plaintiff moved for contempt claiming a $91,000 arrearage from retroactivity; court denied contempt (no willful violation) but ordered defendant to pay the $91,000 lump sum by a set date; defendant appealed multiple aspects of the child support and arrearage orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator's factual finding of $400,000 income binds the court on child support | Arbitration excluded child support; court must independently determine income for child support | Court was bound by arbitrator’s incorporated findings; trial court’s higher income finding was erroneous | Court held arbitrator’s income finding was not preclusive for child support; trial court may independently find income because §52-408 bars arbitration of child support issues |
| Whether trial court’s finding of $400,000 employment income (part of $560,637) was clearly erroneous | Plaintiff pointed to evidence (plaintiff’s testimony, defendant’s own auto‑loan application) supporting $400,000 employment income | Defendant relied on his financial affidavit and 2015 tax return showing lower figures | Court held $400,000 employment income finding was supported by record and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether court improperly calculated rental income ($160,637) | Plaintiff relied on tax return figures and supporting chart derived from admitted tax returns | Defendant argued court used a non‑admitted chart and omitted loss properties improperly | Court held sufficient evidentiary basis existed (tax return Schedule E); omission of sold/loss properties reasonable for prospective income calculation |
| Whether court erred in life insurance premium credit, guideline explanations, crediting voluntary payments, and ordering lump‑sum arrearage | Plaintiff: defendant failed to prove premiums or entitlement to deduction; court within discretion on guidelines, credits, and lump sum | Defendant: court should have credited premiums, explained choice within guideline range, applied voluntary payments against arrearage, and allowed periodic arrearage payments | Court rejected defendant’s claims: no evidentiary basis for life insurance deduction; no need to explain when award within guideline range; voluntary payments credit claim moot (defendant received full credit); court permissibly ordered lump sum (arrearage guidelines apply to periodic payments; lump sum rests within court’s discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Guille v. Guille, 196 Conn. 260 (1985) (children have an independent right to parental support; parental agreements cannot bind court where not in children’s best interests)
- Masters v. Masters, 201 Conn. 50 (1986) (ultimate responsibility for children’s best interests rests with the trial court)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (when combined net weekly income exceeds guideline threshold, court should treat highest schedule percentage as presumptive ceiling)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (guidelines application and treatment when combined net weekly income exceeds $4000)
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (2013) (award within guideline range does not require separate deviation findings)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (2005) (limited judicial review of arbitration awards; courts generally defer to arbitrator on issues submitted)
- Nashid v. Andrawis, 83 Conn. App. 115 (2004) (plain error in permitting arbitration of issues that should be judicially determined, such as custody/visitation)
- Olson v. Olson, 71 Conn. App. 826 (2002) (trial court free to assess credibility and income despite parties’ financial affidavits)