217 Conn.App. 647
Conn. App. Ct.2023Background
- Parties married in Nigeria (2010); no children; filed for dissolution in 2019; trial held remotely Aug. 10, 2021.
- Plaintiff is a self-employed banker/financial adviser; defendant has degrees and worked as substitute teacher/caregiver.
- Trial court found plaintiff’s deposits showed monthly income ranging $3,000–$7,000 (based on Exhibit I) and ordered alimony of $1,500/month for ten years (or $120,000 lump sum).
- Exhibit I included approximately $16,085 in Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) deposits received between mid-2020 and mid-2021.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the court improperly included temporary pandemic unemployment benefits as income; trial court later articulated that it had included ~$16,085 PUA in its income calculation.
- Appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by treating temporary PUA as recurring income; remanded for a new trial on all financial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether temporary pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) may be included as income for a long-term alimony award | Onyilogwu: PUA was temporary and foreseeable to end, so it should not have been used to calculate a 10-year periodic alimony award | Catherine: PUA was money actually received and therefore properly counted as income; all income can be temporary and benefits can stand in for prior employment income | Court: PUA was not regular or sufficiently recurring to be treated as income for a ten-year alimony order and should not have been included |
| Whether the alimony award was excessive and whether financial orders must be reworked | Onyilogwu: Inclusion of PUA inflated income and made $1,500/month alimony consume most of his true income, leaving him destitute | Catherine: The trial court considered the funds; absence of explicit finding that benefits would end does not preclude counting them | Court: Award was excessive given plaintiff's true recurring income and ability to pay; remanded for new trial on all financial orders (mosaic doctrine) |
Key Cases Cited
- Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 (1998) (income defined broadly to include items that increase resources available for support)
- Birkhold v. Birkhold, 343 Conn. 786 (2022) (not every receipt is income; trial court discretion required)
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (2005) (reversal where financial orders were inequitable/excessive)
- Pellow v. Pellow, 113 Conn. App. 122 (2009) (reversal where orders consumed a large portion of payer’s income)
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 138 Conn. App. 544 (2012) (mosaic doctrine: interrelated financial orders must be refashioned when one is erroneous)
- Keusch v. Keusch, 184 Conn. App. 822 (2018) (remand authority to reconsider all financial orders after reversal)
- Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299 (2003) (appellate remand typically authorizes trial court to reconsider all financial orders)