Cogan v. Cogan

Decision Date30 March 1982
Citation442 A.2d 1342,186 Conn. 592
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesRussell 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.

PARSKEY, Associate Justice.

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: "As used herein, the term gross income shall include salary and all other earned income of Husband, all retirement and pension benefits received by Husband, social security payments received by Husband, all severance pay or other income received by Husband from IBM and all bonuses received by Husband. Gross income shall not include dividend income, unemployment compensation, interest income, notes and other receivables, capital gains, tax refunds or income received from the sale of personal or real property.

"It is understood and agreed between the parties that the payments provided for herein shall not be affected by any change in the assets or income of Wife. Husband agrees to supply Wife, not less than annually, with copies of his Federal Income Tax Return and W-2 Withholding Statements, and to promptly notify Wife immediately of all changes in his gross income as defined above. In the event that Husband shall fail to provide Wife with immediate notification of any such change in gross income, all adjustments provided for hereunder shall, upon verification of such change, be made retroactive to the date of such change in gross income.

"As further alimony, Husband agrees to pay and reimburse Wife for all federal state and local income taxes which Wife shall be compelled to pay upon the aforesaid alimony payments after Wife shall have taken all available personal deductions and exemptions. Wife shall send to Husband not later than March 15th of each year, all figures and data necessary to compute said additional income tax including all exemptions and deductions, and Husband shall pay to Wife said reimbursement not later than April 10th of said year, said payments and information to refer to the preceding calendar year. Except as expressly set forth herein, each party shall be responsible for their own federal, state and local income taxes. Wife shall provide Husband with copies of Annual Federal Income Tax returns as filed and advise the Husband in advance as to plans to sell Wilton property."

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
3 cases
  • Ahneman v. Ahneman
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1998
    ...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
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1987
    ...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
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1982

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT