Kravetz v. Kravetz
11 A.3d 1141
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Married in 1981; four children from the marriage.
- Dissolution on Oct. 20, 2004; defendant awarded primary residence and plaintiff ordered to pay $1200 weekly child support for four children, with deviations recognizing total family support.
- Court noted presumptive support would be about $600 weekly; ordered deviation to a higher amount.
- Plaintiff obligated to pay 60% of college expenses after accounts were exhausted and 50% of extraordinary expenses.
- August 2008 contempt motion filed by defendant; September 2008 modification motion by plaintiff; October 2008 attorney’s fees motion by plaintiff.
- May 18, 2009 memorandum reduced child support by $209 retroactively and awarded $5000 attorney’s fees; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly modified child support. | Kravetz argues oldest child aged out; support should be reduced. | Kravetz doubles presumptive amount; improper calculation. | Yes; court properly reduced support, with rational calculation. |
| Whether court erred in denying contempt for extraordinary expenses and college costs. | Kravetz should pay 60% college and 50% extraordinary expenses. | Expenses fall outside educational order or were not properly tied to contempt. | No error; court correctly distinguished between college expenses under educational order and extraordinary expenses. |
| Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded under § 46b-87. | Prevailing party entitled to fees for contempt defense. | Fees punitive and excessive given parties’ incomes. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleary v. Cleary, 103 Conn. App. 798 (Conn. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard in domestic relations)
- Keeys v. Keeys, 43 Conn. App. 575 (Conn. App. 1996) (child support ends at 18 or 19 if in high school)
- Gravius v. Klein, 123 Conn. App. 743 (Conn. App. 2010) (contempt findings require willful noncompliance; abuse of discretion standard)
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (Conn. 2009) (trial court may exercise continuing jurisdiction to effectuate judgment)
- Roberts v. Roberts, 32 Conn. App. 465 (Conn. App. 1993) (equitable powers to protect integrity of the judgment)
- Esposito v. Esposito, 71 Conn. App. 744 (Conn. App. 2002) (award of attorney’s fees under 46b-87; discretion and punitive nature)
- Gil v. Gil, 110 Conn. App. 798 (Conn. App. 2008) (attorney’s fees in contempt proceedings; reasonableness criteria)