152 Conn.App. 231
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Dissolution judgment in 2008 ordered unallocated child and spousal support of $5700 per month until death, remarriage, civil union, or cohabitation; arrearage enforced through Support Enforcement Services.
- November 2008: defendant moved to modify due to alleged substantial change in finances after unemployment; while pending, plaintiff filed a contempt motion for nonpayment in January 2009.
- Magistrate Strada held hearings in May 2009; found $20,082 arrearage and conditioned any modification hearing on a lump-sum $7500 payment; defendant made a $2100 partial payment.
- March 2010: Magistrate Strada granted partial modification reducing total monthly payment from $5700 to $4322; alimony portion not addressed, with indication defendant would need to return to family court for that issue; defendant later appealed but dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- June 2012: defendant filed a new motion to modify in the regular Superior Court docket, not the Family Support Magistrate Division; plaintiff moved to dismiss in January 2013 arguing IV-D framework required FSMD filing.
- March 19, 2013: trial court granted the motion to dismiss, but did not clearly articulate whether due to lack of jurisdiction or lack of opposition; defendant appeals alleging jurisdictional error and record deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether regular docket court lacked jurisdiction to hear the modification motion under IV-D rules | Tonghini contends FSMD must hear IV-D modification motions. | Tonghini argues regular docket may hear the motion; proper forum is FSMD. | Court declines to review due to an inadequate appellate record. |
| Whether the record deficiency warrants withholding review of jurisdictional claim | Plaintiff argues proper record supports dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. | Defendant asserts adequate record exists to review the issue. | Review declined; record deemed inadequate; court cannot decide the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Gordon, 148 Conn. App. 59 (2014) (court may require articulation when record is unclear and missing transcript)
- CC Cromwell, Ltd. Partnership v. Adames, 124 Conn. App. 191 (2010) (appellant must seek articulation to support review)
- Chester v. Manis, 150 Conn. App. 57 (2014) (adequacy of record and briefing standards in review)
- Keating v. Ferrandino, 125 Conn. App. 601 (2010) (adequacy of briefs required for appellate review)
- Pritchard v. Pritchard, 103 Conn. App. 276 (2007) (jurisdictional relationship between FSMD and regular docket)