Robinson v. Robinson
160 A.3d 376
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Donald J. Robinson and Margaret Robinson divorced by uncontested judgment (2014) with a separation agreement providing tiered child support ($400 → $300 → $200/week) and alimony ($1,000/week) for limited years. Three of four minor children later moved to live primarily with Donald.
- Donald (self-represented) filed a second postjudgment motion to modify child support and custody, arguing downward modification was warranted because three children now lived with him.
- Trial court found the presumptive child support under the guidelines to be $221/week, found there was effectively shared physical custody despite the children primarily residing with Donald, and denied modification — ordering child support at $300/week (upward deviation consistent with prior agreement).
- Donald appealed, arguing (1) the court miscalculated presumptive support by failing to deduct alimony paid from his income and add it to Margaret’s income, (2) the court erred in finding shared physical custody, and (3) there was no justification for an upward deviation from the guidelines.
- The trial court reasoned that the regulations do not treat alimony between the parties as income to the payee or as a deduction for the payor for guideline calculation, that the children moved freely between homes (supporting shared custody), and that equitable factors justified maintaining the higher support amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Margaret) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony payments should be added to recipient’s gross income and deducted from payor’s income for guideline calculation | Alimony need not be added; regulations exclude only alimony from nonparties | Alimony paid to Margaret should be included in her income and deducted from his for computing proportional support shares | Court held alimony between the parties is not included as income to recipient nor deducted from payor; presumptive support $221/week was correctly calculated |
| Whether there was shared physical custody despite three children primarily residing with defendant | Shared custody exists because children spend substantial time with both parents; plaintiff testified children move freely | Defendant argued primary residence changed and custody finding should reflect that, warranting downward support modification | Court found shared physical custody (substantially equal contact not required) and the finding was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in refusing to decrease support after change in residence | Continuing the prior order would be equitable given shared custody and both households must be maintained | Defendant argued change of primary residence of three children constituted substantial change warranting reduction | Court held the change did not make continuation of prior order unfair; denial of modification not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether upward deviation from presumptive guideline amount was justified | Deviation justified by equitable factors, prior agreement, and need to maintain both households | Defendant argued no justification for upward deviation above guidelines | Court upheld upward deviation to $300/week as equitable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lusa v. Grunberg, 101 Conn.App. 739 (2007) (plenary review of agency regulation interpretation)
- Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (2008) (expressio unius canon applied in regulatory construction)
- Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, 272 Conn. 734 (2005) (agency regulations construed per statutory construction principles)
- Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn.App. 819 (2012) (appellate review standard in domestic relations matters)
- Budrawich v. Budrawich, 156 Conn.App. 628 (2015) (§46b-86 standards for modification—substantial change or substantial deviation)
- Rosier v. Rosier, 103 Conn.App. 338 (2007) (comparison limited to conditions since last order; avoid relitigation)
- Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, 251 Conn. 59 (1999) (appellate review limited to clearly erroneous factual findings)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn.App. 459 (1999) (purpose of guidelines to prevent support payer from paying less than guideline amount)