157 Conn.App. 804
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Marriage dissolved December 18, 2009; stipulated financial agreement set temporary and then reduced alimony, terminating in 2020.
- After termination from employment, defendant received reduced alimony by stipulation ($500/week during unemployment) and agreed to notify plaintiff of employment offers.
- Defendant later entered a consulting arrangement reported as $10,000/month gross; plaintiff moved to increase alimony on that basis.
- On December 16, 2013, the trial court found defendant had $10,000/month gross income and increased alimony to $910/week without making findings on net income.
- Defendant moved to reargue claiming the court ignored business expenses and self-employment taxes; the motion was denied and defendant appealed.
- On May 13, 2014, after a later hearing showing gross income declined to $9,000/month, the court denied defendant’s motion to decrease alimony, again referencing gross rather than net income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may base alimony modification on defendant’s gross income (Dec. 16, 2013 increase) | Plaintiff argued the rise in defendant’s gross earnings justified upward modification | Defendant argued court must use available net income (deducting business expenses and self‑employment tax) rather than gross | Court of Appeals: trial court erred — orders based solely on gross income; reversal and remand for new hearing |
| Whether the court may deny downward modification by comparing gross income changes (May 13, 2014 denial) | Plaintiff argued the 10% gross decrease did not constitute a substantial change | Defendant argued net income change (after expenses/taxes) must be assessed to determine substantial change | Court of Appeals: trial court again erred by using gross income as the basis; reversal and remand for new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Medvey v. Medvey, 98 Conn. App. 278, 908 A.2d 1119 (Conn. App. 2006) (support/alimony must be based on available net income; context-specific application)
- Hughes v. Hughes, 95 Conn. App. 200, 895 A.2d 274 (Conn. App. 2006) (distinguishes orders that merely reference gross income from those that are based solely on gross income)
- Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299, 811 A.2d 1283 (Conn. 2003) (reversal where trial court expressly relied on gross income to determine support)
- Keller v. Keller, 141 Conn. App. 681, 64 A.3d 776 (Conn. App. 2013) (court abused discretion when it based orders solely on imputed gross income)
- Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn. App. 355, 780 A.2d 198 (Conn. App. 2001) (financial orders improper where court repeatedly compared parties’ gross incomes)