Kelepecz v. Kelepecz

• Decision Date: 13 July 1982
• Citation: 187 Conn. 537,447 A.2d 8
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Sonya KELEPECZ v. George S. KELEPECZ.

Page 8

447 A.2d 8

187 Conn. 537

Sonya KELEPECZ v. George S. KELEPECZ.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 5, 1982.

Decided July 13, 1982.

Robert R. Sheldon, Bridgeport, with whom, on brief, was T. Paul Tremont, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).

Alfred R. Belinkie, Bridgeport, with whom, on brief, was James F. Sullivan, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and SHEA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1978. The dissolution order granted custody of their minor child to the plaintiff and required the defendant to pay $50 per week as child support and, for a period of three years, to pay $100 per week as alimony. In 1980 the plaintiff moved to modify the child support order. The trial court granted the motion, ordering the weekly child support increased to $100 per week. The defendant appeals from that order, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of an uncontemplated substantial change in the circumstances of the parties. We disagree with this claim and find no error.

The standard for reviewing trial court decisions in domestic relations cases has been articulated frequently by this court. "[T]he action of the trial court will not be disturbed unless it abused its legal discretion, and in determining this the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness ...." Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263, 413 A.2d 854 (1979); see Koizim v. Koizim, 181 Conn. 492, 497, 435 A.2d 1030 (1980); Corbin v. Corbin, 179 Conn. 622, 624, 427 A.2d 432 (1980).

To modify a support order, the court must determine that there has occurred a substantial change in the parties' circumstances which was uncontemplated at the time the order was entered. General Statutes § 46b-86(a); Sanchione v. Sanchione, 173 Conn. 397, 407, 378 A.2d 522 (1977); Grinold v. Grinold, 172 Conn. 192, 195, 374 A.2d 172 (1976); 2A Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (2d Ed. 1961) § 17.07. The party seeking modification of a support order must "clearly and definitely" demonstrate the substantial change. McGuinness v. McGuinness, --- Conn. ---, ---, 440 A.2d 804 (43 Conn.L.J., No. 3, pp. 10, 11) (1981); Grinold v. Grinold, supra, 196.

The trial court cited two grounds for its determination that the requisite change in circumstances had occurred: (1) increases in the child's expenses and (2) a substantial increase in the defendant's financial status vis-a-vis that of the plaintiff. There was evidence before the court of specific increased expenses for the child, principally the cost of attending nursery school in order to relieve the plaintiff's mother from the burden of caring for the child during the plaintiff's working hours.

The defendant contends that the parties' clear understanding that the plaintiff would be self-sufficient in three years necessarily encompassed an understanding that the initial child support figure included all child care. Such a claim blurs the distinction between the alimony and child support obligations and is not supported by the facts of this case. There was no evidence indicating that the alimony payments included any amount for child support. The plaintiff's mother had cared...