Leftridge v. Wiggins, 44 A.3d 217

Leftridge appeals a trial court modification increasing child support from $50 to $150 per week.
State filed motion to modify on behalf of Wiggins; service alleged at 49 Spring Street, Hartford, in care of Sylvontae Bishop.
July 13, 2010 magistrate vacated prior order, reinstating $50 weekly support due to lack of proper jurisdiction.
September 27, 2010 hearing on modification held; Leftridge allegedly not served, though notice appeared to have been mailed.
Court found notice of September 27, 2010 proceedings and retroactive modification to May 28, 2010; Leftridge challenged notice.
On appeal, court reversed, holding Leftridge was not properly served and thus denied due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Leftridge properly served with the motion to modify?	Leftridge did not receive proper service of the motion to modify.	Service was proper or substantially valid; notice was adequate.	No; service was defective, violating due process.
Did the September 27, 2010 orders violate due process due to lack of notice?	Without proper service he had no meaningful opportunity to be heard.	The record shows notice and Leftridge had some awareness of proceedings.	Yes; due process violated; orders must be vacated.
May the modification be retroactive under § 46b-86 where pending motion existed?	Retroactive modification without proper service is improper.	Statutory retroactivity applies since modification was pending.	Modification improperly retroactive; vacate orders.

Winick v. Winick, 153 Conn. 294 (Conn. 1965) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
Pritchard v. Pritchard, 103 Conn. App. 276 (Conn. App. 2007) (fundamental notice and opportunity to be heard in family support matters)
Waterview Site Services, Inc. v. Pay Day, Inc., 125 Conn.App. 561 (Conn. App. 2010) (clear error standard for trial court factual findings; notice issues)