153 Conn.App. 208
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Daniel and Laurie Lynch divorced by judgment dated September 14, 2009; financial orders (alimony $200/wk, child support $135/wk, division of household expenses) were entered and appealed by Daniel. This court in Lynch I partially reversed the financial orders and remanded for reconsideration, affirming only a pendente lite modification from Feb 4, 2009 to judgment.
- On remand the trial court (Adelman, J.) conducted new financial proceedings (Oct 2012), fashioned orders reflecting facts at dissolution and later changes, and modified orders based on postdissolution changed circumstances of both parties.
- The court awarded Laurie durational alimony of $100/wk (until death or Sept 14, 2019), $7,500 in appellate attorney’s fees, found various overpayments and reimbursements between parties (including an alimony overpayment reduced for tax consequences), and granted contempt motions against Daniel for unpaid support both under the original and the remand orders.
- Daniel raised nine claims on appeal, challenging (inter alia) the alimony award, denial of his modification requests (seeking alimony from Laurie and reimbursements), the contempt findings, the calculation of household expense reimbursements and pendente lite arrearage, the appellate fee award, alleged judicial bias, and alleged denial of hearings/due process.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court in all respects, holding (inter alia) that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in making financial orders, modification and contempt rulings complied with governing statutes and precedent, factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and allegations of bias and due process violations were unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by awarding alimony to Laurie (not Daniel) at dissolution | Daniel argued Laurie had higher income, lower debt, and better prospects so alimony should have been awarded to him or none to her | Laurie and trial court relied on marriage history, retirement/deferred assets disparity, and statutory alimony factors to support award to Laurie | Court affirmed: alimony award to Laurie was not an abuse of discretion given asset/income findings and statutory criteria |
| Whether Daniel was entitled to the equitable relief he sought on modification (including retroactive reimbursement/alimony from Laurie) | Daniel claimed substantial change in circumstances meriting retroactive alimony/reimbursement and modification in his favor | Laurie/trial court pointed to reciprocal changes, close earning capacities, and limits on retroactive modification; court adjusted orders but rejected Daniel’s requested relief | Court affirmed: modification properly applied only prospectively; court reasonably exercised discretion and granted reimbursements/offsets it found equitable |
| Whether contempt orders (Oct 2012, May 2013) were improper because original orders vacated/remanded or overlapped with reimbursements | Daniel argued he need not pay while appeal pending or could offset overpayments against arrears; §46b-86/retroactivity prohibits retroactive offset | Laurie/trial court argued orders remain enforceable until modified; arrears accrued and contempt appropriate for willful nonpayment | Court affirmed contempt findings: orders must be obeyed until modified; overpayment cannot be used to retroactively modify accrued support; contempt within trial court discretion |
| Whether trial court miscalculated household expense reimbursements and failed to determine pendente lite arrearage as directed on remand | Daniel contended court undercredited his payments and ignored defendant’s concession of arrearage (from Lynch I) | Trial court relied on the competing evidence, used a compromise figure for defendant’s payments, found evidence of pendente lite arrearage inconclusive/de minimis | Court affirmed: factual findings supported by record; recalculation or reweighing of evidence not warranted; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Lynch, 135 Conn. App. 40 (Conn. App. 2012) (appellate decision that partially reversed financial orders and remanded)
- Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673 (Conn. 1990) (on remand courts must craft property orders based on facts at time of dissolution)
- Gamble-Perugini v. Perugini, 112 Conn. App. 231 (Conn. App. 2009) (affirming modest durational alimony where earning histories and caregiving role supported award)
- McRae v. McRae, 139 Conn. App. 75 (Conn. App. 2012) (retroactive modification of already-accrued alimony/support is impermissible)
- Bryant v. Bryant, 228 Conn. 630 (Conn. 1994) (§46b-8 permits consideration of modification and contempt together but does not mandate joint hearing)
- Kovalsick v. Kovalsick, 125 Conn. App. 265 (Conn. App. 2010) (failure to award alimony can be an abuse where recipient lacks means and no prospect to earn)
- Wiegand v. Wiegand, 129 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. 2011) (trial court must consider statutory alimony factors; failure to award can be abuse in certain circumstances)
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2005) (alimony orders may be an abuse where payments would create net income deficit)