O'Brien v. O'Brien
138 Conn. App. 544
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- O’Brien sought dissolution; court issued final financial orders including an unallocated alimony and child support award.
- Plaintiff argued the court failed to consider or apply the child support guidelines and to determine presumptive amounts and deviations.
- Judgment reversed: unallocated award intertwined with other financial orders; remanded for a new trial on all financial issues and appellate attorney’s fees.
- Trial court had previously ordered the defendant to be the beneficiary of life insurance and to pay education and support costs; parenting plan incorporated.
- Postjudgment motions and appeals followed; defendant sought appellate attorney’s fees which were also remanded for reconsideration.
- Dissolution involved three minor children; income, earning capacity, and asset division were central to alimony and support calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did court err by not applying guidelines to unallocated support? | O’Brien argues guidelines apply; unallocated order cannot bypass them. | Dissent argues guidelines inapplicable to unallocated awards where no separate child support order exists. | Court abused discretion; guidelines must be considered in unallocated orders. |
| Was there a failure to determine presumptive child support and deviation basis? | Presumptive amount not determined; no basis for deviation found. | Guidelines guidance applicable; deviation must be explained if used. | Failure to determine presumptive amount and justify deviation. |
| Should earning capacity have been assigned to the defendant for alimony | Defendant had significant earning capacity; court erred by not imputing. | Court properly considered earning capacity factors; premature to assign at dissolution. | No abuse; court could exercise discretion without imputing earning capacity. |
| Is the life insurance provision appropriate to secure alimony/child support obligations? | Nine million in life insurance was unwarranted or excessive. | Life insurance secured payments and reflected lifestyle and risk; within court’s discretion. | Court did not abuse discretion; the life insurance requirement was justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (2010) (on-record presumptive amount required to facilitate review of deviations)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (guidelines apply to child support; presumption and deviation framework)
- Favrow v. Vargas, 222 Conn. 699 (1992) (mandatory application of guidelines in child support matters)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (2012) (unallocated awards include child support and may be adjusted; need basis for such structuring)
- deCossy v. deCossy, 172 Conn. 202 (1977) (earning capacity as a factor in alimony awards; discretion recognized)
- McPhee v. McPhee, 186 Conn. 167 (1982) (employability/earning potential considerations in statutory factors)