194 Conn.App. 351
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Parties divorced in 2012; judgment incorporated a separation agreement requiring the plaintiff to pay $71/week child support and share daycare costs.
- Plaintiff (Daniel Shear) later was found disabled by the SSA effective June 1, 2014; the child received dependent monthly and retroactive lump‑sum SSA benefits.
- The parties entered a January 20, 2017 stipulation (approved by a family support magistrate) to continue a hearing and to suspend disbursement of SSA withholdings pending a March 9, 2017 hearing.
- At the March 9, 2017 hearing Magistrate Schulman reduced the plaintiff’s weekly support to $0 (crediting the child’s monthly SSA benefit) and ruled that any excess SSA disability payments to the defendant were a nonrefundable "gratuity." He did not resolve the plaintiff’s separate claim seeking reimbursement under the January 20 stipulation.
- Plaintiff sought reconsideration (denied), then appealed Magistrate Schulman’s March 9 order to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed in part but remanded for determination of the stipulation/refund claim. Subsequent proceedings on remand produced additional orders and another Superior Court decision.
- On appeal to this Court the issue was whether the original family support magistrate’s March 9, 2017 order was a final, appealable judgment to the Superior Court; the Court concluded it was not and directed dismissal of the appeal to Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Magistrate Schulman’s March 9, 2017 order was a final, appealable judgment | The order resolved the modification and denial of credits/refunds so appeal to Superior Court was proper | The order was not final because it failed to resolve the stipulation/refund claim | Not final; appeal to Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have been dismissed |
| Whether the Superior Court erred by deciding merits rather than dismissing for lack of jurisdiction | Superior Court applied wrong standard and reached merits on SSA overpayment issue | Superior Court had authority only if the magistrate’s order was final; here it was not | Superior Court should have dismissed the appeal instead of affirming on the merits and remanding for the unresolved stipulation issue |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to credit/refund for lump‑sum and monthly SSA benefits | Plaintiff argued he overpaid support and was entitled to credit/refund (including sums disbursed despite the stipulation) | Magistrate treated lump‑sum/dependent benefits as a nonrefundable gratuity and denied full refund; Superior Court affirmed in part | Appellate Court did not reach the merits because of lack of final judgment; merits remain for proper proceedings after jurisdictional defects are cured |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (announces two‑prong test for when an otherwise interlocutory order is appealable)
- Khan v. Hillyer, 306 Conn. 205 (2012) (final‑judgment requirement for appellate jurisdiction; Curcio test explained)
- Johnson v. Clark, 113 Conn. App. 611 (2009) (family support magistrate order held interlocutory; Superior Court appeal should have been dismissed)
- Harvey v. Wilcox, 67 Conn. App. 1 (2001) (stay/order by family support magistrate not a final appealable judgment)
- Morera v. Thurber, 162 Conn. App. 261 (2016) (no final judgment where trial court failed to resolve all matters placed before it)