Ray v. Ray
173 A.3d 464
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2008; one minor child (born 2005). Dissolution judgment awarded time-limited unallocated alimony and child support to plaintiff; defendant’s alimony terminated August 31, 2015.
- Dissolution court had previously ordered unallocated payments and a 25% share of defendant’s additional cash compensation (up to $200,000) while alimony remained in effect.
- Defendant moved postjudgment for an order establishing child support under Connecticut child support guidelines after alimony terminated. At hearing parties introduced financial affidavits and testimony; a family relations officer’s guidelines worksheet (unsworn) showing combined net weekly base salaries > $4,000 was presented.
- Plaintiff (initially pro se) sought $895/week based on including deferred compensation; alternatively requested a supplemental percentage order on defendant’s deferred compensation. Defendant sought $288/week (presumptive minimum under guidelines for combined income > $4,000).
- Trial court ordered $288/week (presumptive minimum) and declined to enter a supplemental percentage order for deferred compensation; plaintiff’s motion to reargue was denied. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of record for appeal | Plaintiff’s record was sufficient; court should review merits. | Defendant argued plaintiff failed Practice Book §64‑1 and §67‑4, making record inadequate. | Court reviewed despite procedural defects because transcripts permitted meaningful review. |
| Whether trial court failed to find defendant’s net income | Ray argued court made no net‑income finding so order lacked basis. | Ray argued court had evidence of net incomes and relied on it. | Court found worksheet, affidavits, testimony provided net income basis and court stated gross/net amounts; no reversible error. |
| Reliance on unsworn guidelines worksheet | Ray argued court improperly relied on unsworn worksheet containing figures inconsistent with affidavits/testimony. | Ray failed to object at trial; worksheet based on defendant’s affidavit per counsel admission. | Not reviewed on appeal for preservation reasons; trial court’s use permissible here. |
| Treatment of deferred/indeterminate compensation | Ray argued trial court should include deferred compensation in net income or enter supplemental percentage order. | Defendant and court noted deferred comp was indeterminate/vested but not distributed; court may order presumptive minimum given combined base incomes > $4,000 and may decline supplemental order. | Court affirmed: trial court considered evidence, appropriately ordered presumptive minimum $288/week and permissibly declined supplemental percentage order absent evidence justifying deviation. |
| Motion to reargue standard and ruling | Ray contended reargument should have produced relief based on clearer presentation of defendant’s income. | Defendant: reargument cannot relitigate or present evidence discoverable earlier. | Court held reargument improperly used to rehash facts; no abuse of discretion in denying relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2013) (trial court must provide sufficient findings when deviating from or failing to apply guidelines)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (Conn. 2010) (courts must avoid converting bonus/wealth transfer into disguised alimony and must justify deviations by child needs)
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (Conn. 2013) (when combined net weekly income exceeds $4,000, $4,000 level is presumptive minimum and supplemental awards are case‑specific)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (Conn. 2010) (supplemental awards based on bonus income require findings linking award to child’s needs)
- Valentine v. Valentine, 164 Conn. App. 354 (Conn. App. 2016) (trial court not required to make explicit findings as to net income where record shows basis for order)