Valentine v. Valentine
141 A.3d 884
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Nora and Joel Valentine married in 1990, had two children, moved to Connecticut in 2004, and bought a house with rental units that became the parties’ primary marital asset.
- After an initial dissolution judgment (May 20, 2013) was reversed on appeal, the case was remanded for a new hearing on all financial issues; Judge Pinkus conducted the remand trial in Sept. 2014 and entered new financial orders.
- Court awarded the plaintiff the marital home (all title and equity) but required her to attempt annual refinances to remove defendant from mortgage obligation and, if not achieved within eight years, to place the home for sale and keep proceeds.
- Court ordered child support (initially $300/wk, reduced to $215/wk), alimony ($250/wk, modifiable, lasting until death/remarriage/cohabitation), and various allocations for health insurance and unreimbursed medical costs.
- Dispute persisted over (1) whether orders regarding refinancing/sale of the home were improper given plaintiff’s alleged poor credit and earning capacity; (2) whether support awards were based on gross instead of net income; and (3) whether previously imposed pendente lite mortgage arrearage and contempt fines (discovery noncompliance) should have been enforced by the court on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court’s order that plaintiff hold title to home but attempt annual refinances/ sell after 8 years | Order is abusive because plaintiff lacks credit, employment prospects, and ability to refinance; ability to comply is material | Plaintiff’s credit problems largely self-inflicted; plaintiff has income sources and has been making mortgage payments under modification | Affirmed — trial court reasonably found plaintiff could attempt refinance or sell within 8 years; award of home with requirement to remove defendant from mortgage was not an abuse of discretion |
| Use of gross vs. net income in child support/alimony calculations | Court relied on gross income in making support and alimony awards | Court considered parties’ net income (financial affidavits) and child support guidelines | Affirmed — court explicitly stated it considered net income and applied guidelines; references to gross income were not fatal |
| Enforcement of pendente lite mortgage arrearage claimed by plaintiff (~$31,992) | Plaintiff sought arrearage for missed payments November 2011–Sept 2012 based on earlier orders | Defendant pointed to a Sept. 4, 2012 agreement/mortgage modification that placed mortgage responsibility on plaintiff and adjusted arrearage via modification | Affirmed — remand court reasonably construed parties’ modification agreement as resolving prior arrearage and declined to award the claimed sum |
| Enforcement/assessment of previously ordered contempt fines for discovery noncompliance (claimed $16,200) | Plaintiff sought enforcement of November 28, 2012 contempt order ($150/day until compliance) and an award of accumulated fines | Defendant argued either compliance occurred or that fines should not be double-counted/reimposed; trial court found plaintiff ultimately obtained discovery and was not prejudiced | Reversed in part and remanded — trial court erred by refusing to determine and enforce accumulated contempt fines; remand limited to a hearing to determine amount and payment method (severable from other financial orders) |
Key Cases Cited
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2005) (division that leaves a spouse destitute is an abuse of discretion)
- Michel v. Michel, 31 Conn. App. 338 (Conn. App. 1993) (requiring life insurance without proof of ability/insurability may be an abuse of discretion)
- Szynkowicz v. Szynkowicz, 140 Conn. App. 525 (Conn. App. 2013) (support/alimony orders must be based on available net income; references to gross income not dispositive)
- Nowell v. Nowell, 157 Conn. 470 (Conn. 1969) (civil contempt for violation of pendente lite orders cannot be punished after final judgment unless final decree awards damages for contempt)
- Tobey v. Tobey, 165 Conn. 742 (Conn. 1974) (pendente lite alimony orders merge into the final decree; contempt actions for temporary orders are limited post-decree)
- Papa v. Papa, 55 Conn. App. 47 (Conn. App. 1999) (trial court must incorporate accumulated pendente lite arrearage in final order when supported by findings)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (Conn. 2007) (trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider contempt/sanctions for discovery noncompliance)
- Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212 (Conn. 1991) (full and frank mutual disclosure is required in dissolution cases)
- Mays v. Mays, 193 Conn. 261 (Conn. 1984) (contemnor must have a realistic opportunity to purge to keep sanctions remedial rather than punitive)