Styrcula v. Styrcula
139 Conn. App. 735
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Trace dissolution of marriage in 2004; separation agreement fixed unallocated alimony and child support on a sliding scale with IP income excluded from gross income.
- 2005: defendant discharged from JP Morgan Chase; income from ventures labeled as IP income; proceeds from conferences allegedly went to fiancée’s business.
- 2008: plaintiff files contempt for alleged income reduction; 2009 court imputes $250,000 earning capacity and holds contempt for 2008 arrears.
- 2010: plaintiff files second contempt motion; August 9, 2010 hearing uses a three‑part 'stool' framework; defendant then files a motion to modify on August 17, 2010.
- 2011: March 1 hearing held to continue August 2010 matters; parties focus on wilfulness of contempt; modification motion not expressly argued; April 5, 2011 modification order issued to base support on self‑employment income; May 26, 2011 denial of reargument.
- Appeal: court finds due process violation for lack of notice that modification would be decided at March 1, 2011, reverses modification order, and remands for a hearing on modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether modification proceeded without proper notice | Styrcula: no adequate notice of modification issue | Styrcula contends modification was to be decided; however, due process requires notice of issues to be addressed | Modification reversal; lack of notice violated due process |
| Whether due process requires explicit notice of issues to be decided at a hearing | Styrcula lacked notice of modification issue | Modification-related arguments were not properly framed for notice purposes | Court held the lack of notice violated due process |
| Whether remand is required to conduct a proper modification hearing | Modification should proceed with proper notice and full opportunity to be heard | Evidence already presented; current record supports modification | Remand for a hearing on modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Leftridge v. Wiggins, 136 Conn. App. 238 (2012) (due process requires notice of pendency and opportunity to be heard)
- Pritchard v. Pritchard, 103 Conn. App. 276 (2007) (modification without notice could violate due process)
- Demartino v. Demartino, 79 Conn. App. 488 (2003) (modification on issues not before the court abuses discretion)