181 Conn. App. 716
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties divorced in 2012; separation agreement (incorporated into judgment) required plaintiff to pay periodic alimony until July 2016, terminating earlier on death, remarriage, or cohabitation as defined by Gen. Stat. § 46b-86(b).
- Defendant rented in South Windsor paying ≈$1,640/month; in Dec. 2014 she moved into boyfriend’s Bloomfield residence and paid him $800/month toward rent and housing; she continued to pay personal and child expenses.
- Plaintiff moved to terminate alimony under paragraph 12(d) (cohabitation clause) claiming defendant’s financial needs were reduced by ≈$840/month after moving in with boyfriend.
- Trial court found defendant lived with boyfriend but concluded plaintiff failed to prove the boyfriend contributed to defendant’s support sufficiently to show a change in financial needs, and denied termination.
- Appellate court majority held trial court applied too narrow a standard (requiring proof of the boyfriend’s direct contributions) and remanded for a hearing on whether the defendant’s reduced expenses from the move altered her financial needs under § 46b-86(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cohabitation under § 46b-86(b) requires proof the cohabitant made financial contributions | Murphy: need only show living with another caused a measurable reduction in defendant’s financial needs (≈$840/month savings) | Murphy (trial court view / defendant): must show the cohabitant actually contributed to household support so living arrangement caused change | Majority: Trial court erred — proof of third‑party contributions is not always required; measurable decrease in recipient’s expenses caused by living arrangement can satisfy § 46b-86(b); remand for hearing |
| Proper method to measure altered financial needs | Murphy: quantify recipient’s needs in dollar amounts during cohabitation and compare to prior needs | Defendant: absence of evidence quantifying household costs or contributions prevents inference of altered needs | Held: Court should quantify needs during cohabitation (per Blum/Spencer approach); plaintiff entitled to attempt proof of savings impact |
| Whether prior appellate precedent (e.g., Blum) requires cohabitant contributions in all cases | Murphy: prior cases consistent with measuring expenses; contributions are one method, not sole method | Dissent: majority improperly overrules/undermines Blum and related precedent requiring inference of cohabitant contributions | Majority: Distinguishes Blum facts and holds focusing solely on cohabitant payments is too narrow under § 46b-86(b) |
| Proper remedy and remand | Murphy: termination of alimony if altered needs proven | Defendant: trial court’s factual findings supported denial | Held: Reverse and remand for further proceedings to determine if savings from move altered financial needs enough to terminate alimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Spencer, 177 Conn. App. 504 (measured reduction in rent during cohabitation can establish altered financial needs under § 46b-86(b))
- Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316 (party seeking modification must adduce evidence from which court can infer value of cohabitant’s contributions)
- DeMaria v. DeMaria, 247 Conn. 715 (§ 46b-86(b) requires living arrangement to have attendant financial consequences; change must alter recipient’s needs)