186 Conn.App. 431
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties divorced in 2011; separation agreement provided for unallocated alimony and child support (March 1, 2011–June 30, 2020) with percentage formulae based on the defendant’s pretax employment income and stepdown percentages.
- By mid‑2015 defendant had assumed primary physical custody first of the daughter and then (informally, July/August 2015) the son; defendant filed a motion to modify custody and child support (Aug 14, 2015).
- Judge Tindill accepted the stipulation that the son live with defendant (Feb 8, 2016) and held hearings in spring 2016 on child support and the plaintiff’s motions to modify unallocated support, tuition, and add‑on expenses.
- Trial court terminated the defendant’s child support obligation retroactive to Sept 2, 2015, ordered the plaintiff to reimburse child support he had paid her, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant weekly child support ($137) going forward.
- Trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to modify the unallocated alimony/child support formulae, and held that the UConn tuition cap did not apply because the parties and children mutually agreed their daughter would attend Princeton and son Dartmouth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in calculating the plaintiff’s income for child support by including alimony and by relying on unclear worksheets/affidavits | LeSueur: court used affidavit that included alimony and unsupported figures; inclusion of alimony in recipient’s gross income is prohibited by statutes/regulations | Burke: any error was harmless/de minimis and did not materially affect $137/week order | Reversed as to child‑support computation: court’s income findings were clearly erroneous, alimony may not be included for child‑support income, remand for recalculation/hearing |
| Whether termination of defendant’s child support obligation retroactive to Sept 2, 2015 was improper (insufficient info; plaintiff still paid some child expenses) | LeSueur: court lacked financial data as of Sept 2, 2015 and plaintiff continued to incur necessary expenses for the son, so retroactivity should begin Feb 8, 2016 | Burke: court had June 2015 financial data and custody change/child support payments justified retroactivity; plaintiff did not show she still bore necessary expenses | Affirmed in substance: retroactive termination was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiff failed to show need; but remand required to set retroactive date no earlier than date of service (Sept 10, 2015) |
| Whether the separation agreement’s UConn cap applies once parties mutually agree on a college | LeSueur: cap should still limit parental obligation absent explicit waiver tied to §46b‑56c(f) | Burke: where parties and child mutually agreed on school, the agreement’s mutual‑agreement clause controls so the cap does not apply | Affirmed: agreement unambiguous; mutual agreement to attend Princeton/Dartmouth removes UConn cap applicability; trial court properly ordered tuition payments accordingly |
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion to modify unallocated alimony/support after her salary reduction | LeSueur: reduction constitutes substantial change requiring full §46b‑82 consideration and likely increased award | Burke: court considered statutes/case law, found expenses decreased and formula still equalized incomes; plaintiff failed to show insufficiency | Affirmed: court found substantial change but reasonably concluded (on the record) that the existing percentage formula continued to fulfill intended purpose; denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferraro v. Ferraro, 168 Conn. App. 723 (appellate standard in domestic relations matters)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (child support follows the child after custody change)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (guidelines treatment when combined net weekly income exceeds $4,000)
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (range between presumptive minimum and maximum when combined income exceeds guideline table)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 172 Conn. App. 393 (interpretation of gross income exclusions under regulations)
- Caffe v. Caffe, 240 Conn. 79 (court need not recite each statutory factor explicitly when deciding alimony)