O'Brien v. O'Brien
Citation | 53 A.3d 1039,138 Conn.App. 544 |
Decision Date | 16 October 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 31990.,31990. |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Michael J. O'BRIEN v. Kathleen E. O'BRIEN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Steven D. Ecker, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Ann Walsh Henderson, for the appellant (plaintiff).
George J. Markley, Fairfield, for the appellee (defendant).
LAVINE, SHELDON and WEST, Js.
In this marital dissolution action, the plaintiff, Michael J. O'Brien, appeals from the judgment of the trial court with respect to several of the financial orders entered at the time of its final decree. Among other orders herein challenged is the court's unallocated award of alimony and child support for the defendant, Kathleen E. O'Brien, and the parties' minor children.1 Central to the plaintiff's challenge to this award is his claim that, in so ordering, the court failed to consider and apply the child support guidelines (guidelines).2 On this score, the plaintiff complains, more particularly, that the court erred by failing to determine the presumptive amount of child support under the guidelines, failing to make a finding that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate in this case, and failing to indicate that it was deviating from the guidelines when it fashioned its unallocated alimony and child support order.3 Because we agree with the plaintiff that the court erred in entering its unallocated alimony and child support order without considering and applying the guidelines, and we conclude that that order is inextricably interwoven with the mosaic of other financial orders which were entered at the time of the final decree, we reverse the court's judgment with respect to all of its final financial orders and remand this case for a new trial on all financial issues. The plaintiff also claims that the court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay the defendant $50,000 in attorney's fees to defend this appeal. Because such an order must be based upon the financial circumstances of the parties, and those financial circumstances may be materially affected by the new financial orders issued on remand, the award of appellate attorney's fees must also be remanded for further consideration.
The following facts are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The parties were married in 1985, and three children were born of the marriage—the first child on August 9, 1994, the second child on July 2, 1996, and the third child on May 19, 2000. The plaintiff filed an action seeking dissolution of the parties' marriage on January 30, 2008. In its memorandum of decision filed on September 18, 2009, the court rendered judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, adopting a parenting plan formulated by the parties, and ordering, inter alia, that “[t]he plaintiff shall pay to the defendant, during his lifetime or until the defendant's death or remarriage, the following percentages of his ‘gross annual earned income from employment,’ as hereinafter defined, as unallocated alimony and child support: a. [45] percent of the plaintiff's ‘gross annual earned income from employment’ from October 1, 2009 until January 30, 2015; b. [c]ommencing February 1, 2015, [40] percent of the plaintiff's ‘gross annual earned income from employment’ through July 2, 2024; c. [f]rom July 2, 2024, until the death of either party or the defendant's remarriage, whichever shall first occur as defined by statute, [20] percent of the plaintiff's ‘gross annual earned income from employment’ as alimony.” 4 This appeal followed.5 Thereafter, on February 25, 2010, the defendant filed a postjudgment motion for attorney's fees to defend this appeal. The court granted that motion, issuing an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant $50,000 in appellate attorney's fees. The court subsequently articulated the basis of this order as follows:
On appeal, although the plaintiff presents several claims of error with respect to the court's unallocated award of alimony and child support, we will focus on the most fundamental of those claims—that in fashioning that award, the court erred in failing to consider and apply the guidelines. On this score, to reiterate, the plaintiff specifically claims that the court erred by failing to determine the presumptive child support amount under the guidelines, failing to make a finding that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate under the circumstances of this case, and failing to indicate that it was deviating from the guidelines when it entered its unallocated, or “total family support,” order pursuant to § 46b–215a–3 (b)(5) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. We agree.
We begin our analysis of the plaintiff's claim by identifying the appropriate standard of review. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. Williams, 276 Conn. 491, 496–97, 886 A.2d 817 (2005).
“The legislature has enacted several statutes to guide courts in fashioning child support orders. General Statutes § 46b–84 provides in relevant part:
“To ensure the appropriateness of child support awards, General Statutes § 46b–215a provides for a commission to oversee the establishment of child support guidelines. General Statutes § 46b–215b requires that
(Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308, 318–20, 9 A.3d 708 (2010); see also Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358, 367–70, 999 A.2d 721 (2010); Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 91, 995 A.2d 1 (2010); Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 367–68, 710 A.2d 717 (1998); Favrow v. Vargas, 231 Conn. 1, 29, 647 A.2d 731(1994); Budrawich v. Budrawich, 132 Conn.App. 291, 299–300, 32 A.3d 328 (2011).
Our Supreme Court has recognized that (Emphasis added.) Favrow v. Vargas, 222 Conn. 699, 715, 610 A.2d 1267 (1992). Our Supreme Court recently emphasized the importance of the mandatory application of the guidelines to all cases involving minor children, including those cases involving families with high incomes, in Maturo v. Maturo, supra, 296 Conn. at 80, 995 A.2d 1. The court there held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Grovenburg v. Rustle Meadow Assocs., LLC, AC 37719
- Malpeso v. Malpeso
- Ingles v. Ingles
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, SC 19635