CORRARINO v. CORRARINO, 30546.
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | FOTI, J |
| Citation | 121 Conn.App. 22,993 A.2d 486 |
| Parties | Joseph M. CORRARINO v. Maryann M. CORRARINO. |
| Docket Number | No. 30546.,30546. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 2010 |
993 A.2d 486
121 Conn.App. 22
Joseph M. CORRARINO
v.
Maryann M. CORRARINO.
No. 30546.
Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Argued December 1, 2009.
Decided May 11, 2010.
Geraldine Ficarra, Trumull, with whom were Michael Ruben Peck, Lisa A. Knopf, Trumbull, and, on the brief, Megan Dianne Monahan, certified legal intern, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Deborah L. Grover, Danbury, for the appellee (defendant).
FLYNN, C.J., and ALVORD and FOTI, Js.*
FOTI, J.
I this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the plaintiff, Joseph M. Corrarino, appeals from the trial court's denial of his postjudgment motion for modification of a support award that sought a decrease in the amount of alimony to be paid to the defendant, Maryann M. Corrarino, and the court's granting of the defendant's postjudgment motion for modification that sought an increase in alimony.1 On appeal,
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. In 2002, the plaintiff sought a judgment of dissolution. In rendering the dissolution judgment on September 3, 2003, the court incorporated the parties' separation agreement (agreement) into its judgment. The agreement included a provision pertaining to alimony. That provision provided, in relevant part, that the plaintiff would pay to the defendant as alimony $2500 per month. It further provided that the court "may, in its discretion, modify the alimony and suspend, reduce or terminate the payment of periodic alimony upon a showing that the defendant is living with another person under circumstances which the court finds should result in the modification, suspension, reduction or termination of alimony because the living arrangements cause a change of circumstances as to alter the defendant's financial needs." The agreement also provided that "the alimony which has been agreed upon is predicated upon the plaintiff's salary structure of a current base gross salary from employment of $140,000.00 and his bonus for his performance paid once per year."
On June 2, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for modification in which he sought a decrease in the amount of alimony to be paid. The basis for the modification alleged in the motion was that the defendant was "residing with another person under circumstances which should result in a modification of the alimony order." On July 1, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for modification in which she sought an increase in the amount of alimony paid to her based on a substantial change in circumstances. See footnote 1 of this opinion. After hearing testimony and taking evidence on both motions over the course of three days, both counsel presented oral argument on each motion.2 The court issued a memorandum of decision on November 4, 2008. In its decision, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for modification and granted the defendant's motion for modification. In addressing the plaintiff's motion, the court stated that the threshold issue to be determined was whether the plaintiff had proven that the defendant was cohabiting with another person. The court found that DeBroske slept over at the defendant's residence on weekends and "`once in a blue moon'" on weekdays. The court, however, found that the plaintiff had failed to carry his burden of proving cohabitation because that arrangement was not sufficient to show that the defendant was cohabiting. The court further found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the sleeping arrangement between the defendant and DeBroske had altered the defendant's financial needs
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that because "regularly and consistently received gifts, whether in the form of contributions to expenses or otherwise, are properly considered in determining alimony awards to the extent that they increase the amount of income available for support purposes"; Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 360-61, 710 A.2d 717 (1998); the court erred in failing to consider as part of the defendant's gross income financial contributions she received from DeBroske regardless of a finding of cohabitation. Therefore, the plaintiff asserts, the court improperly denied his motion for modification. On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiff has raised this argument for the first time on appeal and, therefore, decline to afford it review.
The following additional facts and procedural history provide the necessary backdrop for our resolution of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff filed his motion for modification using form JD-FM-174 Rev. 8-07. On it, he alleged that the defendant was "residing with another person under circumstances which should result in a modification of the alimony order." Furthermore, that form indicated that the modification he sought was the termination, reduction, suspension or modification of his alimony obligation to the defendant. The record is bereft of any memorandum of law in support of his motion, either accompanying it or subsequently filed with the court. Also, as noted, the parties, by agreement, did not file any posttrial briefs in this matter. See footnote 2 of this opinion. Our thorough review of the transcripts reveals that the issue of the alleged financial contributions of DeBroske to the defendant was squarely before the court. The issue, however, of whether the plaintiff's alimony should be modified regardless of any finding of cohabitation simply was not.
At the outset of the hearing, the court stated, without objection: "The plaintiff's motion ... is based on a claim of cohabitation.... Therefore, the court is going to hear the plaintiff's motion, then hear the defendant's motion." At the commencement of the second day of the hearing on the plaintiff's motion, the court stated, again without objection: "When we were last here on August 18, 2008, we had commenced the plaintiff's motion regarding alimony and cohabitation." Later that day, during direct examination of the plaintiff by his counsel the following exchange took place:
"The Plaintiff's Counsel: All right.... Are you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKechnie v. McKechnie, AC 31498
...also Noonan v. Noonan, 122 Conn. App. 184, 190, 988 A.2d 231, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 928, 5 A.3d 490 (2010); Corrarino v. Corrarino, 121 Conn. App. 22, 30, 993 A.2d 486 (2010). Additionally, we note that in Logan v. Logan, 96 Conn. App. 842, 845-46, 902 A.2d 666 (2006), we declined to revi......
-
Mckechnie v. Mckechnie, 31498.
...Noonan, 122 Conn.App. 184, 190, 998 A.2d 231, cert. denied, [130 Conn.App. 416] 298 Conn. 928, 5 A.3d 490 2010); Corrarino v. Corrarino, 121 Conn.App. 22, 30, 993 A.2d 486 (2010). Additionally, we note that in Logan v. Logan, 96 Conn.App. 842, 845–46, 902 A.2d 666 (2006), we declined to rev......
-
Kirwan v. Kirwan, AC 40008, (AC 40047)
...court cannot be raised for the first time on review." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Corrarino v. Corrarino , 121 Conn. App. 22, 30, 993 A.2d 486 (2010). We therefore decline to review this claim.The judgments are affirmed.In this opinion the other judges concurred.--......
-
Belevich v. Renaissance I, LLC, AC 43085
...appellate briefs with respect to that ruling. Accordingly, we deem any such claim to be abandoned. See, e.g., Corrarino v. Corrarino , 121 Conn. App. 22, 23 n.1, 993 A.2d 486 (2010).2 The plaintiffs also claim on appeal that—to the extent that the court's rendering of summary judgment was b......