Tittle v. Skipp-Tittle
128 A.3d 590
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Parties divorced March 28, 2011; separation agreement awarded defendant alimony $1,803/week (ending on death, remarriage, or Jan. 1, 2018) and child support $534/week; judgment stated alimony duration was “non-modifiable.”
- Plaintiff’s income fell dramatically; on December 28, 2011 the trial court suspended plaintiff’s alimony and child support obligations (reduced alimony to $0) after finding plaintiff lacked present ability to pay.
- Court later clarified (Aug. 23, 2013) that the 2011 order stopped alimony/child support from accruing and reduced payments to zero "until further order."
- Custody modified Oct. 16, 2012: plaintiff awarded sole legal custody; defendant given conditional, limited visitation and was subject to protective orders; defendant had not seen children for over a year by Oct. 8, 2013.
- On Oct. 8, 2013 the court denied (1) defendant’s motion to reinstate alimony, (2) plaintiff’s motion for child support, and (3) the guardian ad litem’s contempt motion (not pursued). The court found defendant had lost her job due to her own misconduct (two arrests) and that plaintiff remained primary caregiver.
- Defendant appealed; this court dismissed portions of the appeal as untimely and left only the challenge to denial of motion to reinstate alimony, which the court now affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tittle) | Defendant's Argument (Skipp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the Dec. 28, 2011 order reducing alimony to $0 | Court had jurisdiction over family matters and continuing jurisdiction to modify alimony | The Dec. 28 order was procedurally defective (various procedural claims, ADA claim, mosaic doctrine) and thus void | Court held it had subject-matter jurisdiction; procedural defects did not deprive jurisdiction and many objections implicated personal authority, not subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether defendant could open the Dec. 28, 2011 judgment after statutory four-month period | Order was final and the time to move to open expired; defendant waived personal jurisdiction objections by litigating for years | Defendant sought to open the judgment (motion to reinstate) beyond four months; argued the order was temporary or procedurally infirm | Court denied motion to open: timing rules apply; the Dec. 28, 2011 ruling was a final postjudgment modification and defendant waived personal-jurisdiction objections |
| Whether defendant proved a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of alimony from $0 back to $1,803/week | Plaintiff argued no excusable change; defendant’s job loss was self-caused so not qualifying | Defendant asserted changed circumstances (job loss, unemployment) justified reinstatement | Court held defendant failed to prove a substantial change; job loss was caused by her own misconduct, so no modification warranted |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reinstate/modify alimony | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and considered statutory factors and findings | Defendant contended the court misapplied standards and erred in findings | Court found no abuse of discretion: factual findings supported decision and legal standards properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 301 Conn. 56 (2011) (self-represented pleadings construed liberally)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (1999) (Superior Court has jurisdiction over family relations and continuing jurisdiction to modify alimony)
- Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665 (2013) (change in circumstances for modification must be excusable and not self-caused)
- Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729 (1994) (scope of evidence in modification limited to changes after the last modification petition)
- Wilkinson v. Boats Unlimited, Inc., 236 Conn. 78 (1996) (motion to open reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263 (1992) (distinction between subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; waiver rules)
- Ahneman v. Ahneman, 243 Conn. 471 (1998) (postjudgment financial rulings are final for appeal purposes)