316 Conn. 182
Conn.2015Background
- Married in 1999; one child born of the marriage.
- Separation agreement incorporated into 2007 dissolution judgment; §3(B) provides unallocated alimony and child support shall be paid until death, wife’s remarriage or cohabitation as defined by §46b-86(b), or August 1, 2011.
- §3(F) contemplates child support adjustments if alimony ends during the child’s minority.
- 2010–2012: defendant sought modification; plaintiff sought contempt; court ordered suspension of unallocated support during plaintiff’s cohabitation.
- Appellate Court reversed trial court; held termination upon cohabitation was permanent under §3(B); remanded for issues on child support and contempt.
- This certified appeal asks whether the self-executing termination is correct and whether §46b-86(b) can authorize modification/suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3(B) self-executing termination upon cohabitation is permanent. | Nation-Bailey argues termination is not automatic; remedial power may suspend. | Bailey argues ‘until’ unambiguously terminates on cohabitation with no suspension. | Permanent termination upon cohabitation; no suspension authority under §3(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Krichko v. Krichko, 108 Conn. App. 644 (Conn. App. 2008) (auto-termination upon earliest triggering event (including cohabitation))
- Mihalyak v. Mihalyak, 30 Conn. App. 516 (Conn. App. 1993) (automatic/self-executing termination upon cohabitation)
- D’Ascanio v. D’Ascanio, 237 Conn. 481 (Conn. 1999) (definition of cohabitation tied to §46b-86(b) and limits modification powers)
- Scoville v. Scoville, 179 Conn. 277 (Conn. 1979) (modifiability of alimony where ambiguity or lack of express nonmodifiability exists)
- Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn. App. 819 (Conn. App. 2012) (ambiguity in termination language subject to modification)