228 Conn.App. 444
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- The parties, Jennifer M. Yanavich (plaintiff) and Joseph Yanavich (defendant), dissolved their marriage in 2018 and entered into a separation and property settlement agreement, setting alimony and child support obligations for the defendant.
- Joseph Yanavich is the sole shareholder and president of an S corporation, Performance Plumbing & Heating, LLC, and his income from this corporation forms the basis of support orders.
- After the dissolution, both parties frequently filed post-judgment motions alleging violations of the dissolution judgment.
- The defendant moved to modify his alimony and child support, asserting a change in financial circumstances due to distributions from prior years’ retained earnings.
- The defendant also moved for contempt, arguing that the plaintiff willfully involved the children in parental disputes contrary to the settlement agreement.
- The trial court denied the modification but found the plaintiff in contempt and declined to impose punitive sanctions, instead issuing remedial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are S corporation retained earning distributions present income for support modification? | N/A (plaintiff did not appeal or argue this point on appeal) | Retained earnings from past years, distributed later, should not be counted as present income for support purposes | Yes, such distributions constitute income for support purposes |
| Was there a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of support? | N/A | His financial circumstances declined and so modification is warranted | No substantial change—the defendant’s cash flow remained similar since original orders |
| Should punitive sanctions be imposed for contempt of parenting provisions? | Likely opposed sanctions (did not argue; herself in contempt) | Court should have issued punitive sanctions against plaintiff for involving children in financial disputes | No abuse of discretion by the court—remedial, child-centered response was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Birkhold v. Birkhold, 343 Conn. 786 (Ct. 2022) (clarifies broad definition of income in dissolution cases, including S-corp income actually received)
- Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 (Ct. 1998) (income defined broadly to support purposes in divorce)
- McPhee v. McPhee, 186 Conn. 167 (Ct. 1982) (equitable division depends on spouse’s continuing duty of support)
- Coleman v. Bembridge, 207 Conn. App. 28 (Ct. App. 2021) (standard of appellate review in family matters)