Ludgin v. McGowan
| Decision Date | 17 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | (AC 19744) |
| Citation | 64 Conn. App. 355,780 A.2d 198 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ROBERT F. LUDGIN v. COLLEEN A. MCGOWAN |
Schaller, Flynn and O'Connell, JS. Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Wesley W. Horton and, on the brief, Donald J. Cantor, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Timothy Sheehan, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher D. Storm, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, Robert F. Ludgin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Colleen A. McGowan. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) relied on the parties' gross incomes rather than on their net incomes in fashioning the financial orders and (2) determined his child support payments by failing to comply with the child support guidelines and by failing to treat its parenting plan as a shared custody arrangement. We agree with the plaintiff's first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment in part without addressing the merits of his second claim.
The following facts and procedural history are necessary for a proper resolution of the plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff, who is an attorney employed as a sole practitioner, and the defendant were married on November 13, 1988. During their marriage, the parties had one child born to them.
Claiming a breakdown in the marital relationship, the plaintiff brought this dissolution action by a complaint dated November 15, 1994. He sought joint custody of the parties' minor child. The defendant, in response, filed a cross complaint in which she sought dissolution of the marriage, custody of the minor child, alimony, child support, an assignment of the marital home and equitable division of the marital assets. At the hearing, the parties submitted evidence as to their incomes, both gross and net. The defendant's income was easily discernable, as she was a salaried teacher employed by the Plymouth school district. The plaintiffs income, on the other hand, was more difficult to determine because he is a sole practitioner and had not yet filed his federal tax return at the time of the hearing. Consequently, the court heard a substantial amount of testimony with regard to his income.
On June 9, 1999, the court rendered judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, concluding that it had broken down irretrievably. The court, as part of the dissolution decree, ordered (1) the parties to share joint custody of their minor child, (2) the plaintiff to pay to the defendant $170 per week in child support and (3) the plaintiff to pay to the defendant $184 per week as periodic alimony for a term of four years. In its memorandum of decision, the court referred to the parties' incomes, specifically, their gross incomes. This appeal followed.
The plaintiffs first claim is that the court improperly relied on the parties' gross incomes rather than on their net incomes in fashioning the financial orders. We agree.1
Before discussing the merits of the plaintiffs claim, we note our well settled standard of review applicable to a court's decision regarding financial orders. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lowe v. Lowe, 58 Conn. App. 805, 810, 755 A.2d 338 (2000). Mindful of those principles, we now turn to the issue of whether the court incorrectly applied the law by basing its financial orders solely on the parties' gross incomes.
The defendant acknowledges, as she must, that the law governing this matter is clear. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Febbroriello v. Febbroriello, 21 Conn. App. 200, 202, 572 A.2d 1032 (1990); see also Collette v. Collette, 177 Conn. 465, 469, 418 A.2d 891 (1979).
Here, the court ignored this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maturo v. Maturo
...must consider."); Heard v. Heard, 116 Conn. 632, 634, 166 A. 67 (1933) (net income used to determine alimony); Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355, 358-59, 780 A.2d 198 (2001) (reversing trial court's financial orders when court relied on parties gross rather than net income); Febbroriello ......
-
Astoria Fed. Mortg. Corp. v. Genesis Ltd. P'ship
...and reverse the court's decision on this ground, we need not address the defendant's other argument. See Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355, 357 n. 1, 780 A.2d 198 (2001).8 We also exercise plenary review in this appeal because we must interpret and determine the applicability of statutes.......
-
Tuckman v. Tuckman
...v. Tobey, 165 Conn. 742, 747, 345 A.2d 21 (1974); Evans v. Taylor, 67 Conn.App. 108, 111, 786 A.2d 525 (2001); Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355, 358, 780 A.2d 198 (2001).” Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299, 306, 811 A.2d 1283 (2003). In the present case, the trial court stated in its memor......
- State v. Stewart
-
Developments in Connecticut Family Law: 2006
...denied, 280 Conn. 902, 907 A.2d 90 (2006). 25. 86 Conn. App. 120, 860 A.2d 292 (2004). 26. 95 Conn. App. at 206. 27. Id. at 207. 28. 64 Conn. App. 355, 780 A.2d 198 (2001). 29. 95 Conn. App. at 215. 30. Id. 31. See, e.g., Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn. App. 355, 780 A.2d 198 (2001), and Collet......