Cogan v. Cogan
Decision Date | 30 March 1982 |
Citation | 442 A.2d 1342,186 Conn. 592 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Russell E. COGAN v. Venus A. COGAN. |
Howard C. Kaplan, Stamford, for appellant (defendant).
Stewart M. Casper, Darien with whom, on the brief, was Elaine T. Silver, Stamford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and SHEA, JJ.
This case involves the construction of the alimony provisions of a separation agreement which was incorporated in a dissolution decree. The agreement provided for monthly payments of alimony to the defendant wife, the amount of such payments to be determined according to a schedule based on the plaintiff husband's gross annual income. The trial court, in deciding the defendant's motion for contempt in the plaintiff's favor, interpreted the agreement to mean "that any change in gross income either upwards or down is to bring about an immediate calculation of alimony payments due, projecting the increase or decrease on an annual basis." Because we disagree with this interpretation, we reverse.
The alimony provisions are contained in article second, paragraph 2 of the agreement. This paragraph provides: "During the life of Husband and until the remarriage of Wife as defined herein, Husband shall pay to Wife on the first day of each month alimony as follows: a percentage of Husband's gross annual income, as defined hereinafter, according to the following table:
HUSBAND'S ANNUAL ALIMONY TO WIFE INCOME MONTHLY ----------------------------------- $ 0 - $20,000 $ 500 $20,000 - $25,000 $ 600 $25,000 - $30,000 $ 800 $30,000 - $35,000 $ 800 $35,000 - $40,000 $ 900 $40,000 - $45,000 $1,000 $45,000 - $50,000 $1,100 $50,000 - $55,000 $1,175 $55,000 - $60,000 $1,250 $60,000 - $65,000 $1,250 $65,000 - $70,000 $1,300 $70,000 - $75,000 $1,300 $75,000 and up $1,350"
The agreement further provides the following:
During the calendar year 1977, the plaintiff earned the total sum of $84,016. Of that amount he received $14,416 in December, 1977, $9000 of which represented a bonus. During 1977 he paid the defendant alimony of $14,850, $1350 of which he paid in December and the balance from January through November. According to the table, based on the husband's annual income in excess of $75,000 for the year 1977, he should have paid the wife a total of $16,200 in alimony at the rate of $1350 a month instead of the amount actually paid thus leaving an arrearage of $1350. The difference between the scheduled alimony obligation and the amount actually paid resulted from the plaintiff's calculation of his monthly alimony obligation on the basis of an annual extrapolation of his gross monthly income.
The agreement prescribes a percentage relationship between gross annual income and alimony. Although the table sets out the income brackets and the monthly alimony payments...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ahneman v. Ahneman
...ruling on a motion for contempt in a marital dissolution action is a final judgment for purposes of appeal. See, e.g., Cogan v. Cogan, 186 Conn. 592, 442 A.2d 1342 (1982) (reviewing denial of motion that plaintiff be adjudged in contempt for failure to make alimony payments in accordance wi......
-
Sweeny v. Sweeny
...agreement, the judgment and agreement should be construed in accordance with the laws applied to any contract. See Cogan v. Cogan, 186 Conn. 592, 596, 442 A.2d 1342 (1982); Beach v. Beach, 141 Conn. 583, 588-89, 107 A.2d 629 (1954). The trial court's construction of the agreement is an issu......
- Hadden v. Krevit