Lynch v. Lynch
135 Conn. App. 40
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Parties married in 1992; two children; dissolution on irretrievable breakdown.
- Trial court found defendant earned about $70k–$80k annually; plaintiff had limited income but published a book with proceeds.
- Court refused to order sale of the marital home until the oldest child finished high school; later ordered immediate sale due to finances and mortgage risk.
- Pendente lite stipulation required equal sharing of several household and children’s expenses; court modified to 60/40 in plaintiff’s favor based on income changes.
- Judgment awarded plaintiff alimony of $200/week, child support of $135/week, net sale proceeds split, 30% of unsold book value to defendant, and 30% of future book royalties to defendant; awarded $15,000 in defendant’s pretrial/trial fees.
- Defendant later obtained postjudgment sole use and possession of the marital home; plaintiff filed multiple postjudgment modification motions and amended appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly modified pendente lite alimony/expenses | Lynch contends no substantial change in circumstances warranted 60/40 split. | Lynch's increased income from the book and defendant's income decrease justified modification. | Affirmed modification portion retroactive to February 4, 2009; remanded for new hearing on all financial orders. |
| Whether pendente lite contempt arrearage was addressed | Defendant owed arrearages from stipulation; should be determined in final judgment. | Arrearages existed but court failed to articulate amount in decision. | Remanded to determine pendente lite arrearage amount to be included in judgment. |
| Whether division of intellectual property and royalties was proper | Court improperly split book value and royalties, constituting double dipping. | Royalties and asset division both properly reflect marital property and income stream. | Remanded; improper to award 30% of unsold book value while also awarding royalties; royalties portion proper; entire mosaic must be reconsidered. |
| Whether postjudgment asset/possession orders were proper | Court lacked jurisdiction to grant postjudgment exclusive possession of the home. | Orders modified living arrangement in the children’s best interests and were permissible. | Court had jurisdiction; order not a personal asset distribution but a postjudgment adjustment of living arrangements; affirmed. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for new hearing on all financial orders | A full reevaluation of the mosaic is necessary due to interwoven orders. | Partial reversals suffice without wholesale remand. | Remanded for a new hearing on all financial orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleary v. Cleary, 103 Conn.App. 798 (2007) (broad discretion in alimony and property division; statutory criteria)
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (2005) (interrelation of property division and alimony; mosaic approach)
- Gallo v. Gallo, 184 Conn. 36 (1981) (intellectual property royalties as marital property)
- Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783 (1995) (double dipping prohibition when asset yields used in alimony calculation)
- TyC v. TyC, 40 Conn.App. 562 (1996) (broad discretion in mosaic dissolution orders)
- Clark v. Clark, 127 Conn.App. 148 (2011) (pendente lite arrearage must be incorporated in final judgment)
- Fiddelman v. Redmon, 37 Conn.App. 397 (1995) (subject matter of postjudgment modification and living arrangements)
- Oldani v. Oldani, 132 Conn.App. 609 (2011) (mosaic interdependence of financial orders; full remand considerations)