Righi v. Righi
160 A.3d 1094
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- John and Allison Righi divorced in December 2014 with a separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution judgment: joint legal custody, children’s principal residence with John, equal parenting time, and "neither party shall pay child support" as a deviation from the guidelines based on shared custody.
- At the dissolution hearing the court noted the presumptive guideline amounts (Allison would have paid $111/week if children primarily lived with John; John would have paid $256/week if they primarily lived with Allison) and accepted the parties’ agreement as "fair and equitable."
- In August 2015 Allison filed a postjudgment motion to modify child support claiming changed financial circumstances (rent increase, work hours not increasing, higher child expenses).
- The trial court (Albis, J.) found there had been no substantial change in circumstances but concluded the original order substantially deviated from the child support guidelines and the record contained no specific finding that applying the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate, and therefore ordered John to pay $100/week.
- John appealed, arguing (1) modification was improper because the court found no substantial change in circumstances, and (2) the dissolution court’s finding that the agreement was "fair and equitable" satisfied the statutory "specific finding" requirement under the child support statutes and regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 46b-86(a) permits modification absent a substantial change in circumstances when prior order substantially deviated from guidelines | Righi: court could only modify if there was a substantial change; finding of no change precludes modification | Allison: § 46b-86(a) provides an independent basis to modify when prior order substantially deviated from guidelines without the requisite specific finding | Held: Two independent bases exist; modification may be granted on the deviation ground even if no substantial change was found (plenary review). |
| Whether a court’s statement that a deviation agreement is "fair and equitable" satisfies the statutory "specific finding on the record" that applying the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate | Righi: "fair and equitable" finding implies the court determined application of guidelines would be inequitable; requiring further explicit language is redundant | Allison: The statute requires an explicit, specific finding that guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate; ‘‘fair and equitable’’ is insufficient | Held: The statute requires an explicit specific finding on the record that application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate; "fair and equitable" is insufficient, so the original order was modifiable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coury v. Coury, 161 Conn. App. 271 (plenary review applies to statutory interpretation in family cases)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 104 Conn. App. 482 (§ 46b-86 permits modification on guideline-deviation ground independent of changed circumstances)
- McHugh v. McHugh, 27 Conn. App. 724 (absence of specific finding leaves a deviationable order subject to modification)
- Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 (three required findings to justify deviation: presumptive amount, specific finding guidelines inequitable, and justification/deviation criteria)
- Syragakis v. Syragakis, 79 Conn. App. 170 (court must state presumptive amount, deviation criteria, and that guidelines would be inequitable)
- Fox v. Fox, 152 Conn. App. 611 (describes the "specific finding" requirement as rigorous)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (statutory framework and role of guideline commission)