189 Conn. App. 576
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Lori and Matthew Winthrop divorced in 2012; the judgment incorporated a separation agreement requiring unallocated alimony: $3,000/month minimum plus additional payments tied to Matthew’s annual "earned income."
- Agreement formula (art. 3.2): 30% of earned income over $102,000 up to $150,000; 20% of earned income over $150,000 up to $200,000; 0% over $200,000.
- Article 3.4 required Matthew, upon written request, to produce paystubs and year-end W-2/1099 reflecting "earned income."
- Article 6.2 provided that a $160,000 employer loan forgiven by Royal Bank would generate imputed income reflected on Matthew’s W-2 and "shall be included" in alimony computation.
- Plaintiff moved for contempt for unpaid 2016 additional alimony; trial court found Matthew’s 2016 "earned income" was the W-2 amount ($168,765.91), denied contempt, and ordered $3,753.18 in additional alimony.
- Both parties appealed: Matthew argued noncash items and business expenses should be excluded or deducted; Lori argued the trial court under-calculated the stepwise percentage owing for 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of "earned income" for computing additional alimony | "Earned income" should be the W-2 amount shown; agreement requires production of W-2/1099 reflecting earned income | Exclude noncash/imputed income and deduct business expenses; treat him effectively as self-employed so net earnings (after business expenses) govern | Court held "earned income" unambiguously means the amount shown on W-2 (consistent with 26 U.S.C. §32 definition); noncash/imputed items included per art. 6.2; business expense deductions not applicable because he was an employee receiving a W-2 |
| Calculation of stepwise additional alimony for 2016 | Trial court omitted the 30% tier for income between $102,000 and $150,000; plaintiff sought correction to include that tier | Trial court only charged 20% on income over $150,000; defendant accepted some liability but disputed the amount | Court reversed in part: trial court erred by failing to include 30% on income between $102,000 and $150,000 and directed judgment totaling $18,153.18 in additional alimony for 2016 |
Key Cases Cited
- McTiernan v. McTiernan, 164 Conn. App. 805 (Conn. App. 2016) (separation agreement incorporated into decree is construed as a contract)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (Conn. 2015) (contract language should be given its ordinary meaning; differing interpretations do not alone create ambiguity)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 181 Conn. App. 309 (Conn. App. 2018) (principles for interpreting unambiguous versus ambiguous contract language)