204 Conn.App. 302
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Parties divorced; one child in primary physical custody of defendant (Xia); plaintiff (Zheng) is a hedge‑fund partner with base salary, bonuses, and partnership distributions.
- Separation agreement and subsequent orders set child support; by 2019 Zheng’s bonus was substantial and defendant was unemployed with no income aside from child support.
- Defendant filed a 2020 motion to modify child support seeking increased basic support and supplemental lump‑sum support on 2019 bonus; evidentiary hearing held before Judge Moore.
- Court calculated presumptive support of $416/week but found application of the guidelines "inequitable and inappropriate," deviated from the guidelines, and ordered Zheng to pay 13% of his net bonuses annually as supplemental child support (and $30,115.68 for 2019).
- Zheng appealed, contending the court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines in ordering the 13% bonus payment; the appellate court reversed only the lump‑sum/supplemental order and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by deviating from the child support guidelines and ordering 13% of plaintiff's net bonus as supplemental child support | Zheng: The 13% award departs from the guidelines and the regulations require the supplemental percentage be "generally consistent" with the schedule; court gave no permissible reason to deviate | Xia (below): Argued increase in plaintiff income and prior orders justified a supplemental percentage; court relied on "coordination of total family support" and "significant disparity" in incomes | Reversed in part. Court abused its legal discretion: the sole stated basis (income disparity) is not a permissible ground here because the custodial parent was unemployed; deviation on that basis fails as a matter of law; remanded for further proceedings on supplemental support |
| Whether the court failed to consider plaintiff's qualified child when calculating supplemental support | Zheng: Court misapplied the guidelines and did not properly account for his qualified child | Xia: (implicit) guidelines worksheet addressed qualified child; past orders considered similar issues | Not decided on merits by appellate court. Judgment affirmed in all other respects; appellate court reversed only the supplemental lump‑sum order and did not reach remaining claims on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (explains limits on permissible deviations from child support guidelines and when income disparity may justify deviation)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (standard of review for child support guideline deviations and related precedent)
- Simms v. Simms, 283 Conn. 494 (2007) (domestic relations standard of review; trial court's discretion and factual findings)
- Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733 (2001) (deference to trial court in domestic relations matters and appellate review principles)