200 Conn.App. 720
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Parties divorced in 2013; the dissolution judgment incorporated a separation agreement requiring the defendant to pay unallocated alimony and child support: initially percentages of salary/bonus, revised to 40% of gross base salary and 25% of gross cash bonus effective Sept. 16, 2016 (until March 15, 2023, unless earlier terminated).
- Defendant moved to modify (filed Nov. 17, 2017), citing substantial change in circumstances including two children reaching majority and increased college-related expenses; sought a reduction in the unallocated payments and reduced life insurance obligation.
- At the postjudgment hearing both parties submitted financial affidavits and child support worksheets; worksheets did not calculate supplemental support attributable to bonus income.
- Trial court found a substantial change in circumstances, reduced the base-salary percentage to 37.5% retroactive to Dec. 6, 2018, left the 25% bonus percentage unchanged, and awarded the plaintiff $27,500 in attorney’s fees.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the court (1) abused its discretion by failing to unbundle child support from alimony and by not applying the child support guidelines, and (2) abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly modified the unallocated alimony/support award without unbundling child support from alimony | Lauri: reduction was appropriate; court considered incomes and changed circumstances | Benjamin: court should first unbundle the 2016 unallocated award into child support and alimony before modifying | Court abused its discretion: failed to unbundle; remand required to determine original child-support component and recalculate alimony/support |
| Whether child support guidelines were required/applied in modification | Lauri: guidelines not controlling here; court addressed circumstances | Benjamin: guidelines must be applied—presumptive amount and any deviation finding required | Court erred: failed to apply guidelines or state presumptive child-support amount and any deviation rationale; must apply 2013 guidelines to the 2016 award on remand |
| Whether awarding $27,500 attorney's fees to plaintiff was proper | Lauri: fees justified under §46b-62 and to prevent undermining financial orders | Benjamin: plaintiff could pay nearly all fees herself; award was improper | Court did not decide on merits; fee award remanded for reconsideration after recalculation of support/alimony (mosaic doctrine) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (2012) (a court must unbundle child support from an unallocated alimony/support order when considering modification)
- Malpeso v. Malpeso, 165 Conn. App. 151 (2016) (unbundling requirement and need to ascertain parties’ intent for unallocated orders)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (2010) (trial court must state presumptive guideline amount and explain any deviation on the record)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (application of child support guidelines to supplemental income such as bonuses)
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (2013) (trial courts must make child support awards in accordance with statutes and guidelines; deviations require on-record findings)
- Gabriel v. Gabriel, 324 Conn. 324 (2016) (standards for modifying alimony/support and importance of assessing present circumstances)