Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 160 A.3d 419

Parties divorced in 1997; court ordered defendant Bonnie Rubenstein to pay $50/week alimony (decided during dissolution after defendant had disappeared with child).
Both parties sought modification; in 2006 the court (Gordon, J.) ordered $50/week alimony continuing until death of either party (this court later affirmed that order).
By 2015 both filed new motions to modify; an evidentiary hearing was held and the trial court (Moukawsher, J.) found a substantial change in circumstances and increased alimony to $200/week (still modifiable on cohabitation and until death of either party).
The trial court based modification on two principal findings: (1) defendant received an inheritance raising her assets (~$100 to ~$1 million); and (2) plaintiff lost earning capacity (became disabled), remains indebted (about $200,000 outstanding), and had lost his prior residence.
Defendant appealed, arguing the court improperly relied on her inheritance, erroneously found the plaintiff’s circumstances had worsened, and improperly converted an alleged debt-repayment purpose into increased periodic support rather than awarding a lump sum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly relied on defendant’s inheritance as the substantial change in circumstances	Rubenstein argued the court properly considered both parties’ changed circumstances (including his worsened need)	Bonnie argued Dan v. Dan bars modifying alimony based solely on increased income of the supporting spouse	Court held the modification was not based solely on the inheritance; principal basis was plaintiff’s worsened circumstances—Dan inapplicable
Whether plaintiff’s financial "station" had worsened since 2006	Rubenstein asserted he became disabled, lost his home, and still owed substantial debt, increasing his need	Bonnie contended plaintiff’s situation had improved (paid down debt, meets weekly expenses)	Court credited plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity, sale of residence, and remaining debt; concluded his station had worsened
Whether court improperly changed character of award by denying lump sum and increasing periodic alimony	Rubenstein sought lump-sum repayment; plaintiff argued ongoing support was appropriate given uncertainty	Bonnie argued the 2006 order was repayment of debt and should remain treated as such (or be converted to lump sum)	Court held 2006 alimony was for support (not limited to debt repayment); periodic increase was within discretion and preferable given future uncertainties

Dan v. Dan, 315 Conn. 1 (2014) (holding that when the only change is increased income of supporting spouse and original award still meets its purpose, the supported spouse should not share in that improved standard)
Hornung v. Hornung, 323 Conn. 144 (2016) (appellate review is less deferential when trial court applies incorrect legal standard)
Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 107 Conn. App. 488 (affirming the 2006 alimony order)
Schwarz v. Schwarz, 124 Conn. App. 472 (discussing standards and § 46b-82 factors for alimony determination)