Olson v. Mohammadu, 149 A.3d 198

Parties married in 2001, one child; dissolution judgment (Aug 5, 2009) awarded plaintiff primary custody, defendant weekly alimony $777 and child support $334/week plus 66% of daycare/extra/medical.
Defendant moved to modify alimony and child support in 2010, claiming reduced income after voluntarily relocating from Florida to Connecticut and taking a lower-paying job to be near the child.
Trial court denied modification in 2010 relying on voluntariness; Appellate Court affirmed; Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding trial court should assess the defendant’s motivation and culpability for income change before denying relief.
Rehearing on remand occurred in April 2014; trial court (Ficeto, J.) found defendant’s net weekly income had dropped but later equaled or exceeded prior levels in subsequent years and denied modification.
Later proceedings (Judge Albis, Feb 10, 2016) addressed: (1) whether a previously ordered $6,002 daycare arrearage (Apr 4, 2013) was suspended during appeals; and (2) plaintiff’s request for $10,000 in appellate attorney’s fees. Court ordered payment of the $6,002 in installments and awarded $10,000 in appellate fees against defendant.

Issue	Olson's Argument	Mohammadu's Argument	Held
1) Modification of alimony	Deny modification; maintain existing award based on available net income	Relocation/income reduction was substantial change warranting lower alimony and court used wrong baseline/net-income calculation	Trial court did not abuse discretion; relied on admitted financial affidavits, applied proper standards, and defendant failed to prove substantial change
2) Modification of child support	Maintain child support; court applied statutory factors and found no basis to modify	Court erred in disallowing certain deductions (insurance, HSA) from gross income under Guidelines	Claim inadequately briefed and speculative; court’s denial affirmed
3) $6,002 daycare arrearage — abeyance/stay	Previous judge’s statements put past arrearage in abeyance until all appeals concluded	Abeyance expired after Supreme Court remand; no stay was in effect and defendant must pay arrearage	Judge Albis permissibly concluded abeyance did not survive remand/new proceedings and ordered payment (no contempt found)
4) Appellate attorney’s fees	Plaintiff lacks liquid funds and cannot pay without dipping into child support; defendant can pay portion	Plaintiff has retirement assets and improved finances; should pay own fees	Award of $10,000 to plaintiff was within court’s discretion given lack of liquid funds and to avoid undermining child support order

Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665 (2013) (Supreme Court: voluntary relocation does not automatically preclude a modification; court must assess motivation/culpability for income change)
Zahringer v. Zahringer, 124 Conn. App. 672 (2010) (trial court may consider changes during pendency of motion when fashioning retroactive modification)
Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729 (1994) (moving party bears burden to show substantial change in circumstances to modify alimony)
Fulton v. Fulton, 156 Conn. App. 739 (2015) (courts entitled to rely on accuracy of sworn financial affidavits; misrepresentation is serious)
Dombrowski v. Noyes-Dombrowski, 273 Conn. 127 (2005) (trial court need not make express findings on each statutory factor or give them equal weight)
Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co., 259 Conn. 114 (2002) (one judge may modify or vacate an interlocutory ruling of another judge in same case when appropriate)
Fox v. Fox, 152 Conn. App. 611 (2014) (after finding substantial change, §46b-82/§46b-84 factors guide modification decision)
Coury v. Coury, 161 Conn. App. 271 (2015) (presumption that court acted correctly; appellate court affirms if record supports determinations)
Hornung v. Hornung, 323 Conn. 144 (2016) (standards for awarding attorney’s fees in dissolution matters and limits on relying solely on ability to pay)