Mason v. Ford
168 A.3d 525
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Parties: Malcolm E. Mason (plaintiff) and Honor A. Ford (defendant), marriage dissolved in 2011; defendant was ordered to pay $174/week child support.
- Defendant filed a motion to modify on June 3, 2016; service on plaintiff occurred June 14, 2016; parties agreed at a June 27, 2016 hearing to reduce support to $0 going forward.
- Trial court issued a July 1, 2016 order modifying support to $0 effective March 7, 2016 and found an arrearage of $2,215 based on sixteen weeks of nonpayment ($174/week).
- Plaintiff testified he had not received payments since the “middle to end” of 2015; defendant testified she was current through January 6, 2016. The court implicitly credited plaintiff’s testimony.
- The court’s retroactive effective date (March 7, 2016) preceded the date the modification motion was served (June 14, 2016), raising a statutory issue under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-86(a).
- On appeal the court affirmed the finding that nonpayment began in late 2015 but held the trial court abused discretion by setting an effective date earlier than the date of service; remanded to set a new effective date (no earlier than June 14, 2016) and to recalculate arrearage, with a clear finding on any waiver by the plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in finding arrearage and the date payments stopped | Mason: testimony supports nonpayment beginning mid–late 2015 and arrearage exists | Ford: payments were current through Jan 6, 2016; she had no income and should not be required to make back payments | Court: did not abuse discretion as it permissibly credited plaintiff; finding that nonpayment began ~Nov 16, 2015 is not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the modification’s retroactive effective date complied with § 46b-86(a) | Mason: did not challenge March 7 date below and suggested March 7 at trial; waived portion of arrearage on appeal | Ford: effective date should be no earlier than service date of June 14, 2016 per statute | Court: reversed as to effective date — statutory limits permit retroactivity only to date of service (June 14, 2016); March 7, 2016 was erroneous |
| Whether defendant’s lack of income excuses back payments (arrearage) | Mason: arrearage may be ordered despite movant’s hardship; trial court correctly assessed arrearage | Ford: no income so court should not require retroactive payments | Court: trial court may assess arrearage; factual finding of nonpayment is supported; hardship does not automatically bar arrearage assessment |
| Whether plaintiff waived part of the arrearage and impact of trial court’s computational error | Mason: at oral argument plaintiff expressly waived $569 resulting from trial court miscalculation | Ford: unknown waiver; trial court’s order lacked articulation on waiver | Court: remand to determine whether plaintiff waived portion and to clearly articulate any waiver and to recalculate arrearage accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- McKeon v. Lennon, 321 Conn. 323 (discusses standard of review in domestic relations cases)
- Mulholland v. Mulholland, 229 Conn. 643 (orders must be obeyed until properly modified)
- Pace v. Pace, 134 Conn. App. 212 (trial court may order movant to pay arrearage despite hardship)
- Hane v. Hane, 158 Conn. App. 167 (statutory framework for retroactive modification under § 46b-86(a))
- Hornung v. Hornung, 323 Conn. 144 (plenary review for statutory questions)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 172 Conn. App. 393 (trial courts have broad discretion in modification motions)
- Sousa v. Sousa, 173 Conn. App. 755 (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- Young v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 188 (presumption that trial court made necessary findings when decision lacks specificity)
- Champagne v. Champagne, 85 Conn. App. 872 (presume trial court acted properly absent articulation)
- Zadravecz v. Zadravecz, 39 Conn. App. 28 (same presumption regarding trial court findings)
- Shelton v. Olowosoyo, 125 Conn. App. 286 (waiver is a factual question for the trier)
- Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Voltarc Technologies, Inc., 263 Conn. 204 (appellate court may decline untimely claims)