Spencer v. Spencer
173 A.3d 1
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2011; dissolution judgment required defendant to pay plaintiff $5,000/month alimony until death, remarriage, civil union, cohabitation, or April 1, 2017.
- Defendant fell behind on payments; January 2013 stipulation acknowledged a $22,000 arrearage and set reduced interim payment terms; court entered judgment on that stipulation.
- In 2013 defendant’s compensation arrangement at his partnership changed (profit‑split to commission), reducing his income; he sought modification/termination of alimony and later claimed cohabitation by plaintiff as grounds for termination effective Oct. 1, 2013.
- Plaintiff filed multiple contempt motions alleging wilful nonpayment; consolidated hearing held Jan. 21, 2015 on contempt and defendant’s amended motion to modify/terminate alimony.
- Trial court (corrected memorandum) found plaintiff began living with her boyfriend on Oct. 1, 2013, that the living arrangement altered her financial needs, that defendant’s income substantially decreased in 2013 (not due to his neglect), terminated alimony effective Oct. 1, 2013, reduced September 2013 payment from $5,000 to $4,000, found total arrearage of $31,550 and denied contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "cohabitation" in decree required proof of romantic/sexual relationship | Spencer: decree should require romantic/sexual component; no such evidence was presented | Spencer: she began living with boyfriend and shared expenses, defendant relied on statutory definition to terminate | Court: "cohabitation" construed consistent with §46b‑86(b) definition (living with another + altered financial needs); romantic/sexual proof not required; termination affirmed |
| Whether termination should be barred by defendant's "unclean hands" (wilful nonpayment caused cohabitation) | Spencer: defendant wilfully underpaid, forcing her to cohabit; unclean hands bars termination | Defendant: nonpayment was excusable because of substantial income decline; he made partial payments and used retirement/overdraft funds | Court: defendant’s nonpayment was not wilful; court credited his financial hardship and denied unclean hands claim |
| Whether trial court erred in finding substantial change in defendant’s finances and that change was not due to his neglect | Spencer: income reduction resulted from defendant’s neglect/failure to seek legal/accounting remedies; thus modification improper | Defendant: partnership compensation change (imposed by partner) materially reduced income; he stayed to preserve income and insurance—change not culpable | Court: substantial income drop supported by tax returns and testimony; trial court reasonably found change not caused by defendant’s culpable conduct; modification for Sept. 2013 (down $1,000) upheld |
| Whether denial of contempt was erroneous (wilfulness of nonpayment) | Spencer: defendant had means and intentionally underpaid; contempt should be found | Defendant: partial payments, borrowing from 401(k) and overdraft show attempts to pay; inability to pay was excusable | Court: found nonpayment not wilful given credible evidence of substantial income loss and partial payments; contempt denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeMaria v. DeMaria, 247 Conn. 715 (1999) (trial court may look to § 46b‑86(b) as a definitional source for “cohabitation” in construing a decree)
- Nation‑Bailey v. Bailey, 316 Conn. 182 (2015) (§ 46b‑86(b) contains definitional and remedial aspects)
- D'Ascanio v. D'Ascanio, 237 Conn. 481 (1996) (statutory definition of cohabitation applies where decree incorporates or references statute)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (discusses interaction between decree language and statutory cohabitation principles)
- Mihalyak v. Mihalyak, 30 Conn. App. 516 (1993) (decree language controls remedial effects when different from statute)
- Krichko v. Krichko, 108 Conn. App. 644 (2008) (addresses effective date of alimony termination)
- Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318 (2009) (contempt requires wilfulness; inability to pay may defeat contempt if credible evidence shows financial inability)