Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn. App. 819

Dissolution judgment in 2001 ordered $1500/week periodic alimony terminating at plaintiff’s 60th birthday or upon remarriage/cohabitation, and assigned plaintiff a share in defendant’s profit‑sharing plan.
2001 judgment also awarded plaintiff $1,887,736 in the defendant’s profit‑sharing plan, later modified by a 2001/2002 order to a formula-based share.
Parties later settled the appeal; stipulation modified the profit‑sharing award, not the alimony obligation, and the alimony provision remained tied to plaintiff’s anticipated self‑support from the plan.
In 2010, plaintiff moved to modify alimony alleging substantial decrease in retirement asset value and reduced income; defendant opposed modification arguing alimony was limited/duration-based.
In 2011, the court ordered child support reduced to $241/week retroactive to 2009 and alimony reduced to $1095/week retroactive to 2010, with alimony still modifiable.
Defendant timely appealed challenging both the alimony modification and the denial of terminating child support based on private school tuition payments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alimony was modifiable under Scoville v. Scoville despite a stated termination event	Pite argues alimony should be modifiable due to substantial change in circumstances	Pite contends alimony terminated at plaintiff’s 60th birthday and thus was nonmodifiable	Alimony is modifiable under Scoville; court did not err in modification
Whether the trial court properly declined to terminate child support despite private school tuition payments	Plaintiff contends defendant’s private school payments justify termination	Defendant asserts no basis to modify/terminate given unilateral tuition decision and shared costs	Court did not abuse discretion; fluctuations in social security and other factors supported reduction but not termination

Scoville v. Scoville, 179 Conn. 277 (1979) (modifiability of alimony where duration is stated, per Scoville)
Rau v. Rau, 37 Conn.App. 209 (1995) (modification standard—decree language governs modifiability; ambiguity leads to modifiability)
Burke v. Burke, 94 Conn.App. 416 (2006) (nonmodification not presumed; equity powers applied)
Lilley v. Lilley, 6 Conn.App. 253 (1986) (modification considerations in domestic relations)
Culver v. Culver, 127 Conn.App. 236 (2011) (unilateral private school tuition does not automatically modify child support)
Passamano v. Passamano, 228 Conn. 85 (1993) (alimony awarded post-judgment may be based on equitable relief)