145 Conn. App. 132
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Randi Shamitz (plaintiff) and Jonathan Taffler (defendant) divorced after a separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution judgment; they have two minor children.
- The separation agreement set alimony at $1/year with a nonmodifiable term (subject to certain contingencies and cohabitation rules) and included provisions allocating child-related expenses but expressly provided that no specific direct child support order would enter "at present."
- Plaintiff moved to modify alimony and child support after the marital home sold, she moved to a rental paying $3,000/month, and she claimed increased expenses and decreased support from the defendant.
- At the modification hearing the evidence focused on defendant’s earnings and earning capacity; plaintiff testified about her changed living expenses and sale of the marital home.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding no substantial change in circumstances (noting defendant’s income was lower but employment situation unchanged and that plaintiff had already received part of defendant’s business value).
- Plaintiff appealed the denial, arguing the court disregarded evidence of her and the children’s changed financial circumstances; the appellate court affirmed, concluding the record did not show the trial court abused its discretion and plaintiff failed to provide an adequate record to show error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved a substantial change in circumstances to modify alimony/support | Shamitz: sale of marital home, separation, higher living expenses, and reduced support created a substantial change | Taffler: (as argued at trial) employment situation unchanged; plaintiff already received business value; no basis to modify | Held: No — trial court did not abuse discretion; plaintiff failed to meet burden to show substantial change |
| Whether court disregarded evidence of plaintiff’s changed finances | Shamitz: court ignored testimony about sale, move, and rent increase | Taffler: court considered record re: defendant’s finances and plaintiff’s prior property share | Held: No — appellate court will not infer omitted findings equate to disregarded evidence absent a proper record |
| Whether incorporation of agreement’s child‑expense provisions created a modifiable child support order | Shamitz: incorporated provisions function as child support orders that can be modified | Taffler: (implicit) court never issued a specific direct child support order | Held: Not decided — appellate court avoided resolving issue because it found no abuse of discretion in denying modification |
| Whether trial court’s failure to make on‑record child‑support guideline findings in original decree affects this appeal | Shamitz: original orders deviated from guidelines without findings | Taffler: (implicit) not before this appeal | Held: Trial court erred in original decree by not making guideline findings, but error not before court on this appeal and cannot be used to overturn denial of modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn. App. 819 (trial court discretion in domestic relations matters)
- McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 (party seeking modification bears burden to show substantial change)
- Gervais v. Gervais, 91 Conn. App. 840 (procedure after finding substantial change; alimony factors under § 46b-82)
- Acadia Ins. Co. v. O’Reilly, 138 Conn. App. 413 (appellant must demonstrate error; appellate court will not presume trial court erred)
- Emrich v. Emrich, 127 Conn. App. 691 (procedures for seeking review of articulation/rectification memoranda)
- Deshpande v. Deshpande, 142 Conn. App. 471 (trial court must make on‑record child support guideline findings when deviating)
- State v. Carattini, 142 Conn. App. 516 (appellate review limited to issues raised on appeal)
- State v. Lage, 141 Conn. App. 510 (claims not raised below will not be considered on appeal)