Light v. Grimes, 156 Conn.App. 53

Libby Light and David Grimes divorced in 2008; court awarded unallocated alimony and child support of $40,000/month based on defendant’s $1,420,000 annual income, with scheduled step-downs as children reached majority.
The court later modified the step-downs (Dec. 15, 2008) and the parties litigated additional postjudgment modification requests in 2009–2013.
In August 2012 Grimes filed a motion to modify the unallocated alimony/support, alleging a substantial reduction in income (2012 distributions and taxable income).
At an April–May 2013 hearing the trial court denied the modification, found the motion wasteful/bordering on frivolous, and awarded Light $20,000 in attorney’s fees.
Grimes moved to reargue and to open the judgment, seeking to introduce his 2012 tax return and accountant testimony; the trial court denied relief.
On appeal the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed denial of modification, reargument, and motion to open, but reversed and vacated the $20,000 attorney’s fees award for lack of required findings under the bad‑faith (inherent authority) exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Motion to modify unallocated alimony/support (2012)	Light: no substantial change shown; maintain order	Grimes: substantial decrease in gross and net income (2012 distributions/taxes) justifies modification	Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence did not compel finding of substantial change
2. Award of attorney’s fees to Light ($20,000)	Light sought fees under §46b‑62 for defending the modification motion	Grimes: Light had resources to pay; fee award improper absent statutory basis or express findings of bad faith	Reversed — fee award vacated because court did not make required findings that claim was entirely without color and that Grimes acted in bad faith
3. Motion to reargue denial	Light: no change — court properly considered evidence	Grimes: court overlooked correct income figure on K‑1 and misapplied facts; should have corrected mistakes	Denied — reargument was an improper attempt to relitigate facts; no overlooked controlling law or facts warranting relief
4. Motion to open judgment (present new evidence)	Light: 2012 returns and accountant evidence were available or derivable from K‑1 earlier	Grimes: 2012 tax return and accountant affidavit constitute new evidence unavailable earlier	Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to show evidence could not have been produced with reasonable diligence

Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (2012) (trial court may award fees under inherent authority only when claims are entirely without color and litigant acted in bad faith)
Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (clarifies narrow bad‑faith exception to American Rule for fee awards)
Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665 (2013) (§46b‑86 requires showing of substantial change in circumstances to modify alimony/support)
CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375 (1996) (discusses standards for finding a claim entirely without color)
Talbot v. Talbot, 148 Conn. App. 279 (2014) (trial court acted within discretion in denying modification despite income reduction not meeting substantial‑change threshold)
McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 (2011) (burden on movant to clearly establish substantial change in circumstances)