140 Conn. App. 792
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- General Statutes § 46b-86(a) allows modification of life insurance orders after dissolution if not precluded by decree.
- Dissolution judgment (June 6, 2006) incorporated a separation agreement (May 24, 2006) requiring each parent to maintain $400,000 life insurance per child until youngest reaches 23.
- Plaintiff (Michelle Sagalyn) sought contempt in 2010 for defendant’s noncompliance; defendant (Christopher Pederson) sought modification in 2011 to terminate life insurance obligation and adjust child support.
- Trial court denied contempt and granted modification on both grounds; plaintiff appealed challenging jurisdiction and modification.
- Court analyzed whether article XI is modifiable and whether defendant could afford the insurance, ultimately affirming modification and authority to modify.
- Relevant evidence showed group policy expired; replacement individual policy cost $9,500/year; defendant’s available assets did not include pension/Social Security for the calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is article XI modifiable, or a property division? | Article XI is a nonmodifiable property division. | Article XI is a child-support obligation, modifiable under § 46b-86(a). | Modifiable; life-insurance provision treated as child-support obligation. |
| Does § 46b-86(a) permit modification of life-insurance provisions in a dissolution decree? | Post-2001 amendment allows modification; plaintiff cites no contrary post-2001 authority. | The statute authorizes modification when not precluded by decree. | Yes, modification permitted. |
| Was the court's finding that defendant could no longer afford coverage clearly erroneous? | Court misstated defendant’s assets and affordability. | Replacement policy cost is unaffordable given assets; pension/SS excluded per findings. | No clear error; finding sustains modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowley v. Crowley, 46 Conn. App. 87 (1997) (life insurance provision may be part of property settlement)
- Billings v. Billings, 54 Conn. App. 142 (1999) (life insurance as property settlement not modifiable when clearly so stated)
- Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 105 Conn. App. 49 (2007) (modification of medical insurance obligations related to alimony considerations)
- Carasso v. Carasso, 80 Conn. App. 299 (2003) (modification of medical insurance obligation linked to alimony concept)
- Damon v. Damon, 23 Conn. App. 111 (1990) (insurance for duration of alimony considered modifiable)