Tuckman v. Tuckman
127 Conn. App. 417
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Karen R. Tuckman and Craig E. Tuckman married November 3, 1990 and have two children born in 1994 and 1996.
- Both spouses had substantial income and assets; defendant reported high earnings and owned interests in BJK Partners and Offices Limited, Inc., valued at approximately $2.7 million and $1.25 million respectively.
- Plaintiff worked in finance with substantial income; in 2006 his base salary was about $200,000 with a $1.5 million bonus, with anticipated similar compensation through 2010.
- On September 13, 2006, plaintiff filed for dissolution; defendant cross-complained seeking alimony, custody, child and educational support, asset assignment, and attorney’s fees.
- Trial court memorandum of decision (January 8, 2009) dissolved the marriage, adopted a parenting plan, and ordered no periodic alimony, $250 weekly child support per child, unequal asset division in defendant’s favor, and other relief.
- Appellate court reversed the child support award for not following guidelines and remanded for a new trial on all financial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly applied child support guidelines | Tuckman argues the court deviated from guidelines despite high combined income. | Tuckman contends deviation was appropriate given assets and circumstances. | Court abused discretion by deviating from guidelines without adequate findings. |
| Whether the child support order is severable from the other financial orders | Severability should allow only child support to be reconsidered. | Severability not clearly warranted due to interdependence. | Child support order is not severable because guidelines deviation taints other orders. |
| Whether the court failed to make required guideline-related findings (net income, applicability) | Court did not articulate net incomes or guideline applicability as required. | Findings were not properly integrated with guideline analysis. | Trial court failed to make requisite guideline findings; remand necessary. |
| What is the proper scope of remand following reversal on financial orders | Remand should reconsider all financial orders due to interdependence. | Remand could be limited to the child support issue. | New trial on all financial issues required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (guidelines must guide high-income cases; deviation must be explained)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (2010) (presumptive child support amount required; severability if no interdependence)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 121 Conn. App. 659 (2010) (remand for reconsideration when financial orders interdependent)
- Pellow v. Pellow, 113 Conn.App. 122 (2009) (standards for appellate review of domestic relations findings)
- Smith v. Smith, 249 Conn. 265 (1999) (modification/remand procedures in dissolution cases)