217 Conn.App. 252
Conn. App. Ct.2023Background
- Parties: Hedyeh Renstrup (plaintiff) was a stay-at-home parent since 2009; Jens Renstrup (defendant) was the primary wage earner with high compensation from Springworks (base salary, discretionary cash bonus, and stock options).
- At trial defendant’s 2019 base salary was $403,650; Springworks targeted a bonus at up to 30% of base but the employment agreement made the percentage discretionary and adjustable by the company.
- The trial court found the plaintiff had an earning capacity of about $40,000/year and recalculated combined income using that figure.
- The court ordered defendant to pay $1,000/week basic child support, plus supplemental child support equal to 17.71% of after-tax bonuses/other income, and supplemental alimony equal to 17.71% of same; the court also treated certain unvested stock/options as marital property.
- On appeal the defendant argued the court misapplied the child support guidelines, failed to make required deviation findings, entered open-ended supplemental awards, relied on a clearly erroneous finding that the bonus was capped at 30%, and that the financial orders are interdependent.
Issues
| Issue | Renstrup's Argument | Renstrup (defendant)'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to calculate/allocate basic child support when attributing earning capacity to custodial parent | The court had discretion in applying deviation criteria; not constrained to pro rata allocation | Once plaintiff’s earning capacity is included, the guidelines require pro rata allocation of the joint obligation; defendant’s obligation should not reflect entire amount | Court abused discretion: after attributing $40k earning capacity to plaintiff, court should have allocated a share to her rather than assigning entire obligation to defendant |
| Upward deviation from guideline ceiling ($955 → $1000) without explicit findings | Plaintiff contended her earning capacity supported deviations | Defendant argued court failed to make the 3 required findings and improperly relied on §46b-86 | Court erred: must make (1) presumptive amount, (2) specific finding of inequity/inappropriateness, and (3) identify which deviation criteria justify variance; §46b-86 inapplicable to initial awards |
| Open‑ended supplemental child support (17.71% of bonuses/other income) and linkage to children’s needs | Plaintiff argued guidelines and preamble permit supplemental orders for unknown future income and that award matched schedule percentage | Defendant argued Maturo requires an explicit finding tying supplemental awards to children’s needs/characteristics and that the order was uncapped and unsupported | Court abused discretion: supplemental award lacked explicit §46b-84(d) findings connecting bonus-based payments to children’s needs; award invalid; also court’s factual finding that bonus was "capped" at 30% was clearly erroneous |
| Supplemental alimony tied to defendant’s bonuses (17.71%) | Plaintiff defended supplemental alimony as appropriate and tied to bonus income | Defendant argued supplemental alimony rests on same erroneous bonus-cap finding and thus lacks factual basis | Supplemental alimony fails for same reason as supplemental child support (based on clearly erroneous factual finding); order reversed |
| Severability and scope of relief (whether errors require redoing all financial orders) | Plaintiff implicitly urged some orders might be severable | Defendant urged mosaic interdependence; supplemental orders affect property/alimony | Court concluded errors are not severable: because supplemental child support and alimony were significant and linked (and tied to erroneous findings), remand for new trial on all financial orders is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (supplemental awards based on bonuses must be tied to children’s needs/§46b-84(d))
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (2013) (for combined net weekly income over $4,000 treat schedule percentage at top level as presumptive ceiling; high‑income awards determined case-by-case)
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (2013) (mosaic doctrine and when financial orders must be reexamined together)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (trial court must make explicit deviation findings when departing from guidelines)
- Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 (1998) (failure to make required guideline deviation findings is abuse of discretion)
- Dan v. Dan, 315 Conn. 1 (2014) (limits on alimony purpose — referenced for context though not dispositive here)
- Zheng v. Xia, 204 Conn. App. 302 (2021) (child support guideline deviations require clear explanation)
- Righi v. Righi, 172 Conn. App. 427 (2017) (articulates three required findings to justify guideline deviation)
- Gentile v. Carneiro, 107 Conn. App. 630 (2008) (supplemental orders treat unknown future lump sums separately from basic support)