153 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Divorce judgment (Oct. 11, 2012) awarded plaintiff unallocated family support of $1000/week for two years, then $200/week for two years, labeled nonmodifiable.
- Judgment also required defendant to pay health insurance, 54% of unreimbursed medical expenses, 22.4% of plaintiff's bonuses, $10,000 attorney’s fees, 50% of marital residence mortgage/taxes, and 75% of costs to prepare a QDRO.
- Defendant moved on May 7, 2013 to modify unallocated family support and other financial orders; motion denied June 26, 2013 without stated reasons.
- Defendant sought rehearing; court granted and reissued; on Aug. 8, 2013 reaffirmed denial of modification, finding unallocated order nonmodifiable and no substantial change in circumstances justifying modification.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the unallocated family support order is nonmodifiable and, even if modifiable, no grounds for modification of the other financial orders existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unallocated family support is modifiable | Robaczynski argues the decree is inconsistent and may permit modification. | Robaczynski contends the decree precludes modification, or at least is ambiguous about modifiability. | Unallocated family support is nonmodifiable; modification denied. |
| Whether substantial change in circumstances warranted modification of the financial orders | No substantial change; assets/earning capacity do not justify modification. | There was a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of multiple financial orders. | Court properly found no substantial change justifying modification; affirmed denial of modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rau v. Rau, 37 Conn. App. 209 (1995) (decree must preclude modification for nonmodifiability to apply)
- Sheehan v. Balasic, 46 Conn. App. 327 (1997) (clear, unambiguous language required to preclude modification)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (2012) (courts may modify despite preclusion to protect children)
- Guille v. Guille, 196 Conn. 260 (1985) (modification considerations in dissolution context)
- Schwarz v. Schwarz, 124 Conn. App. 472 (2010) (broad discretion in domestic relations; consider income/assets)
- Burke v. Burke, 94 Conn. App. 416 (2006) (judgments construed as a whole for intended effect)
- O’Donnell v. Bozzuti, 148 Conn. App. 80 (2014) (requires careful consideration of modification criteria)