190 Conn. App. 386
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Marriage (2005) with two minor children; plaintiff filed for dissolution in Connecticut in Jan 2016. Trial spanned three days; memorandum of decision issued Nov 25, 2016.
- Trial court issued a four‑page memorandum containing minimal factual findings and 19 numbered orders (child support, three years of alimony, property awards) but provided no income findings, asset valuations, credibility determinations, or rationale for deviations from guidelines.
- Court ordered defendant to pay $204/week child support "in accordance with the child support guidelines" and $100/week alimony for three years; plaintiff awarded business and marital residence without assigned values; defendant allowed to retain any interest he may have in a disputed New York rental property.
- Defendant filed a timely motion for articulation seeking factual findings (net incomes, valuations, whether affidavits/testimony were credited). Trial judge retired before articulating; presiding judge denied articulation on (erroneous) jurisdictional grounds. Defendant sought review in this court.
- Record lacked completed child support worksheets and concrete factual findings; defendant argued trial court used incomes other than net income and that financial orders were inequitable; plaintiff argued findings were implied and deference should apply.
- Appellate court concluded the lack of findings—combined with defendant’s diligent efforts to obtain articulation and the impracticality of requiring the retired judge to act—made review impossible; remanded for a new trial limited to financial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court used net income and applied child support guidelines | Court could have credited evidence it chose; findings may be implied; deferential presumption applies | Court failed to use net income; no findings show what income was used; guidelines application unclear | Remanded: record lacks findings to determine net incomes or whether guidelines were followed; cannot presume correctness here |
| Whether alimony exceeded defendant's ability to pay | Court’s discretion should be upheld; plaintiff did not oppose articulation requests | Alimony award may exceed ability to pay; no factual basis provided to evaluate affordability | Remanded: inability to assess ability to pay due to absent findings requires new trial on financial orders |
| Whether property division was inequitable (including NY rental interest) | Asset valuation and division supported by trial record; findings may be implied | Court failed to assign values or explain award of business and residence to plaintiff; NY property interest unresolved | Remanded: court gave no valuations or rationale, making appraisal of equity impossible |
| Whether appellate presumption of correctness applies when trial court issues inadequate findings and judge retires | Presumption of correctness should apply absent contrary indication; plaintiff relies on deference | Defendant diligently sought articulation and review; retirement prevented obtaining findings through no fault of defendant | Court declines to apply presumption here and orders new trial on financial matters due to unique equitable considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammel v. Hammel, 158 Conn. App. 827 (2015) (standard of review and limits on trial court discretion for financial orders)
- Scherr v. Scherr, 183 Conn. 366 (1981) (trial court must provide sufficient factual basis for appellate review; record may suffice in some cases)
- Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 294 Conn. 121 (2009) (appellant bears burden to provide record adequate for review; cannot rely on assumption of error)
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (2013) (child support and alimony must be based on available net income and deviations must be explained)
- Barcelo v. Barcelo, 158 Conn. App. 201 (2015) (mosaic doctrine: financial orders are interdependent; a flaw in one may require reconsideration of all)