L. W. v. M. W.
266 A.3d 189
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Parties divorced in 2012; the dissolution judgment incorporated a separation agreement requiring unallocated alimony (minimum $3,000/month) plus additional amounts tied to the defendant’s annual "earned income."
- Article 3.4 of the agreement required the defendant, upon written request, to produce quarterly paystubs and year-end W-2 and/or 1099 forms reflecting earned income.
- Plaintiff filed two October 2019 postjudgment contempt motions (failure to produce documents; failure to pay university tuition) and a November 2019 contempt motion claiming defendant failed to pay additional 2018 alimony.
- Defendant’s 2018 1099 reported $159,079; the trial court relied on the defendant’s tax return, treated business income as $135,569, then deducted self-employment tax and health insurance to reach $102,363 and denied the November contempt motion.
- The trial court granted the two October contempt motions and awarded attorney’s fees; both sides appealed and the appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant’s 2018 "earned income" under the separation agreement is the amount shown on his 1099 or a net/tax-return figure after business deductions | Earned income equals the figure on the 1099 ($159,079); agreement requires production of W-2/1099 and thus uses those amounts | Trial court correctly used tax return/net income (after self-employment deductions) to calculate earned income | Reversed: earned income is the unambiguous amount shown on the 1099; tax/business deductions are not permitted by the agreement; remand for contempt hearing to determine wilfulness and amount owed |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the October 2019 contempt motions (procedural advisals; factual findings) | Contempt rulings supported by failure to produce documents and unpaid tuition | Defendant argues he was not advised of rights, provided documents, had a payment plan; trial court erred | Affirmed the contempt judgments; appellate review of defendant’s procedural/factual claims declined because defendant failed to provide transcripts (inadequate record) |
| Whether the attorney’s fees awarded for the October 2019 contempt proceedings were improper | Fees proper under §46b-87 (contempt fees authorized) | Defendant challenges reasonableness and basis of fee award | Declined to review for inadequate record; court notes affidavit not required and trial court may rely on various sources and consider punitive nature of contempt fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Winthrop v. Winthrop, 189 Conn. App. 576 (2019) (interpreted "earned income" in the same agreement as the amount shown on W-2/1099 and held tax/business deductions irrelevant)
- McTiernan v. McTiernan, 164 Conn. App. 805 (2016) (separation agreements incorporated into judgments are contracts and construed under contract principles)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (2015) (contract language must be given its ordinary meaning; differing interpretations alone do not create ambiguity)
- Schimenti v. Schimenti, 181 Conn. App. 385 (2018) (when only one reasonable interpretation exists, court need not look outside the four corners)
- Cianbro Corp. v. National Eastern Corp., 102 Conn. App. 61 (2007) (appellate court will not decide claims without an adequate record; must avoid speculation)
- Federal National Mortgage Assn. v. Buhl, 186 Conn. App. 743 (2018) (if appellant fails to provide adequate record, appellate court may decline review)
- Gil v. Gil, 110 Conn. App. 798 (2008) (attorney’s fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion; trial court may rely on its familiarity with case complexity)
- Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456 (2004) (an affidavit of attorney’s fees is not required; courts may rely on various sources to determine reasonableness)