Brown v. Brown
| Decision Date | 14 June 1983 |
| Citation | 190 Conn. 345,460 A.2d 1287 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Shirley BROWN v. Robert Colin BROWN. |
Richard Bruno, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).
William F. Gallagher, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Elizabeth A. Dorsey, New Haven, and Anthony Nuzzo, Jr., Cheshire, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before PETERS, ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA, GRILLO and SPONZO, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment dissolving the twenty year marriage of the parties. The plaintiff wife filed an amended complaint alleging that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and seeking a decree of dissolution, custody of a minor child, support for said minor child, alimony, attorney's fees, and property division.
After an evidentiary hearing, the court rendered an oral decision dissolving the marriage and granting custody of the minor child to the plaintiff. The court ordered the defendant to pay one dollar per year in alimony and $325 per week in child support. In addition, the defendant was ordered to transfer his interest in the jointly owned home to the plaintiff, subject to "a constructive trust in favor of Mr. Brown to the extent of fifteen percent of the net sale price of this house in the event she sells it or if she remarries, the net appraised value of the house." 1 In post-judgment proceedings, the trial court, pursuant to Practice Book § 3065, dissolved the stay of execution pending appeal to the extent of $275 per week for support and ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $2000 to defend the appeal. 2
In his appeal the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) making the award of support [a] without considering the statutory criteria in General Statutes §§ 46b-56 and 46b-84 3 and [b] in an amount far in excess of the child's needs; (2) imposing a constructive trust on the real estate in favor of the defendant; and (3) awarding counsel fees of $2000 to defend the appeal.
There is no dispute as to the facts stated in the financial affidavits submitted by both parties. The defendant had a gross weekly salary of $755, which was reduced to a net salary of $511.90 after payment of withholding and social security taxes plus union dues. The equity in the jointly owned home was approximately $50,000. The plaintiff in her affidavit stated that her weekly expenses for her household totaled $340.23. At the time of trial the "household" included the plaintiff, her minor son and her daughter, who was over eighteen years of age. 4 In addition to the order of $325 per week for child support, the defendant was ordered to maintain Blue Cross and Blue Shield coverage for the minor son and to pay one-half of unreimbursed medical expenses.
"To determine the amount of support required by minor children, the court considers the needs of the children and the respective abilities of the parents to maintain them." Whitney v. Whitney, 171 Conn. 23, 29, 368 A.2d 96 (1976). It is obvious that the child support award was grossly disproportionate to the child's needs. Clearly, the costs of the household attributable to the support of the plaintiff and her adult daughter exceeded the $15.23 per week difference between the court's support award and the plaintiff's household financial needs. Child support orders must be based on the statutory criteria enumerated in General Statutes § 46b-84 of which one of the most important is the needs of the child. The support award may not be used to disguise alimony awards to the custodial parent. We hold that the trial court could not reasonably conclude that $325 per week was required for the minor child's support. Pasquariello v. Pasquariello, 168 Conn. 579, 584, 362 A.2d 835 (1975). The award, therefore, was made in error.
The trial court also was in error in imposing a constructive trust in favor of the defendant on the jointly owned home. "A constructive trust arises where a person who holds title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it." 5 Scott on Trusts (3d Ed.) § 462, p. 3413. "It is not a trust in which the trustee is to have duties of administration lasting for an appreciable period of time, but rather a passive, temporary trust, in which the trustee's sole duty is to transfer the title and possession to the beneficiary." (Emphasis added.) Bogert, Law of Trusts (5th Ed.) § 77, p. 288.
The trial court did not intend that if the plaintiff remarried or attempted to sell the house that title and possession of the house would vest in the defendant. The record indicates that it was the intent of the court that the defendant retain a beneficial interest in 15% of the value of the house, which would vest on the occurrence of either of the two contingencies. A constructive trust is not ordinarily established in a portion of an indivisible asset. In this case, this "constructive trustee" was placed under a duty to convey whatever title she has, not some portion of that title.
Our finding of error is not to be construed, however, as an indication that the court was without power to fashion the remedy which it contemplated. We hold only that a constructive trust was not the correct vehicle to accomplish that end. For example, the court could have granted a second mortgage on the property to the defendant. This action would have given the defendant a security interest in the property, which was the apparent intent of the trial court. 5
The defendant's claim that the award of counsel fees to the plaintiff to defend the appeal was an abuse of discretion is not properly before us. Practice Book § 3062 states in part: "Should the trial court, subsequent to the filing of the appeal, make a ruling which the appellant desires to have reviewed by the supreme court, the appellant shall amend his appeal ...." (Emphasis added.) Although the defendant did file an amended preliminary statement of issues, he did not amend the appeal as required by § 3096. Chanosky v. City Building Supply Co., 152 Conn. 449, 451, 208 A.2d 337 (1965). Because the defendant did not comply with the mandate of § 3062, we will not consider his claim concerning attorney's fees. Costello v. Costello, 186 Conn. 773, 778-79, 443 A.2d 1282 (1982).
There is error; the judgment is set aside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antonio A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...complies with the statutes and rules on which the privilege is granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown v. Brown , 190 Conn. 345, 350, 460 A.2d 1287 (1983). Setting aside the issue of whether the habeas court had jurisdiction to grant the petitioner the relief that he sought in h......
-
Loughlin v. Loughlin
...characterization of a financial order in a dissolution action when evaluating the order's propriety. See, e.g., Brown v. Brown, 190 Conn. 345, 349, 460 A.2d 1287 (1983) (concluding that disproportionately high child support award was, in reality, disguised alimony for custodial parent, who ......
-
Maturo v. Maturo
...the characteristics or needs of the children closely resembles the "disguised alimony" this court disapproved of in Brown v. Brown, 190 Conn. 345, 349, 460 A.2d 1287 (1983). In Brown, the plaintiff's weekly household expenses amounted to $340.23. Id., at 348, 460 A.2d 1287. The trial court ......
-
Loughlin v. Loughlin
...in this case alleges. This court has not addressed directly the issue of child support disguised as alimony. In Brown v. Brown, 190 Conn. 345, 347-49, 460 A.2d 1287 (1983), however, we addressed the reverse allegation—that an award of child support was disproportionate to the needs of the c......
-
Survey of 1989 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...need es than an adult? Should a child's "station" be necessarily less than that of the child s parents? 26. In Brown v. Brown, 190 Conn. 345,460 A.2d 1287 (1983), the Supreme Court found error in a child support order of $325 per week where the combined weekly expenses of the custodial pare......
-
2014 Connecticut Appellate Review
...J.); Board of Ed. v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations, 190 Conn. 235, 460 A.2d 1255 (1983) (Pickett, J.); Brown v. Brown, 190 Conn. 345, 460 A.2d 1287 (1983) (Sponzo, J.); Johnson v. Fuller, 190 Conn. 552, 461 A.2d 988 (1983) (Daly, J.); Sweet v. Sweet, 190 Conn. 657, 462 A.2d 1031 ......
-
1997 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...support, the trial court should consider "the needs of the children and the respective abilities of the parents to maintain them." 59. 190 Conn. 345 60. Id. at 348-49. 61. The Eisenbaum court did not mention the child support guidelines. State of Connecticut Child Support and Arrearage Guid......