155 Conn.App. 273
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Margaret and John McGuinness divorced in 2006; their separation agreement was incorporated into the judgment of dissolution.
- The separation agreement required the defendant to pay unallocated alimony and child support through Feb. 28, 2018, tied to his defined "gross annual cash compensation from employment."
- The agreement contained an income cap: the plaintiff will not participate in the defendant’s "gross annual compensation from employment" in excess of $900,000 per year.
- In March 2011 the plaintiff moved to modify the postjudgment unallocated alimony/child support, alleging a substantial change in circumstances (income increase and changed income structure/reporting).
- The trial court bifurcated the modification proceeding to decide first whether the income-cap provision is modifiable; after a hearing it ruled the income-cap provision is nonmodifiable.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s ruling was not a final judgment under the Curcio test; the modification proceeding remained pending at the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the income-cap provision in the separation agreement is modifiable | McGuinness: the court misinterpreted the agreement; plaintiff can seek modification given changed circumstances | McGuinness: the agreement’s language renders the income-cap provision nonmodifiable | Trial court ruled the income-cap provision nonmodifiable; appellate court did not reach merits on appeal because appeal was premature |
| Whether the trial court’s postdissolution ruling is appealable (final judgment) | Plaintiff proceeded with appeal from that ruling as a separately appealable determination | Defendant: the ruling was interlocutory and part of the ongoing modification proceeding | Appellate court: ruling is not a final judgment under State v. Curcio; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishes two-prong test for when an interlocutory order is immediately appealable)
- Niro v. Niro, 314 Conn. 62, 100 A.3d 801 (2014) (applies Curcio test and explains requirement to show rights would be irretrievably lost without immediate appeal)