Maturo v. Maturo

• Decision Date: 04 May 2010
• Docket Number: No. 17776.,17776.
• Citation: 995 A.2d 1,296 Conn. 80
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Laura E. MATURO v. Frank A. MATURO.

995 A.2d 1

296 Conn. 80

Laura E. MATURO v. Frank A. MATURO.

No. 17776.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 19, 2008.

Decided May 4, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert M. Shields, Jr., with whom were Kenneth J. Bartschi and, on the brief, Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).

Steven D. Ecker, with whom, on the brief, was George C. Jepsen, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Campbell D. Barrett, Steven R. Dembo, Hartford, Justine Rakich-Kelly and Felicia Depaola, certified legal intern, filed a brief for the Children's Law Center of Connecticut, Inc., as amicus curiae.

NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA, SCHALLER and McLACHLAN, Js.^*

ZARELLA, J.

The defendant, Frank A. Maturo, appeals¹ from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Laura E. Maturo, and entering certain financial orders. The defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it (1) ordered him to pay the plaintiff a fixed percentage of his annual net cash bonus as child support, (2) ordered him to pay the plaintiff a fixed percentage of his annual state and federal income tax refunds as additional alimony and child support, and (3) divided the parties' marital assets. The plaintiff responds that the child support award was proper and is consistent with General Statutes § 46b-84.² Additionally, the plaintiff argues that the trial court is not bound to consider the child support and arrearage guidelines (guidelines) enacted by the commission for child support guidelines (commission) to implement the statute when the parties' annual income exceeds the income range set forth in the schedule of basic child support obligations (schedule). The plaintiff also argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the defendant to share 20 percent of his annual tax refund with the plaintiff and 20 percent with his children, respectively, and when it divided the marital property. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

We begin with a brief discussion of the facts found by the trial court and the relevant portions of the dissolution order. The parties were married on May 21, 1988, and are the parents of twin boys born on July 22, 1993. The plaintiff is forty-nine years old and holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from Boston College. Since the couple became parents in 1993, she has been a stay-at-home mother. The defendant is fifty-one years old and holds an undergraduate degree from Yale University and a master's degree in business administration from the Wharton School of Business. The defendant has been employed at the Manhattan office of Merrill Lynch since 1999, working in the area of global equity markets.

The defendant has been successful in his career and the family has enjoyed the financial benefits of his success. At the time of the dissolution, the defendant was earning a yearly base salary of approximately $200,000. He also was earning incentive compensation each year consisting of an annual cash bonus and an annual stock bonus, the latter comprised of both stock options and restricted Merrill Lynch stock. The trial court valued the defendant's net cash bonus for his performance in the years 2005, 2004 and 2003 as $489,449.50, $597,137.67 and $500,000, respectively,³ although the defendant states that his annual bonus historically has been much higher and reached approximately $3.8 million in the years 2000 and 2001.⁴ The trial court also valued the defendant's unexercised stock options at the time of the dissolution at $3,529,000, and his restricted stock at $1,850,000.

The parties' total assets were likewise substantial, amounting to almost $18 million, of which approximately $10.65 million was awarded to the plaintiff and approximately $7.1 million to the defendant. The plaintiff's share of the marital assets consisted of the mortgage free $2.55 million marital home and the bulk of the family's liquid assets, including approximately $8.1 million in cash and investment accounts. Of the $7.1 million in assets awarded to the defendant, approximately $5.7 million was in the relatively illiquid form of restricted shares, unexercised stock options, deferred compensation and the balance of a retirement account. The court also awarded the plaintiff alimony in the amount of $1215 per week plus 20 percent of the defendant's annual net cash bonus and 20 percent of any future tax refund that the defendant might receive. The court further ordered the defendant to maintain comprehensive medical insurance benefits for the plaintiff at his expense for the maximum period allowed by law and to obtain a life insurance policy in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $2 million, authorizing him, however, to reduce the amount of the policy so long as it remained sufficient to meet his payment obligations for alimony and child support.

The court designated the plaintiff as the sole custodian of the parties' two minor children but granted the defendant regular visitation rights. The court based the child custody plan on a five week rotation, during which the children were to be with the defendant from Thursday afternoon through Monday morning three out of the five weeks, and Wednesday afternoon through Thursday morning the other two weeks. Under the court's schedule, this rotation was to continue during summer vacations, except that each parent was granted an exclusive period of two weeks with the children. The effect of the schedule was to place physical custody and responsibility for the children with the plaintiff approximately 60 percent of the time and with the defendant approximately 40 percent of the time.

With respect to child support, the court awarded the plaintiff $636 per week, plus 20 percent of the defendant's annual net cash bonus and 20 percent of any future tax refund that the defendant might receive. The court also ordered the defendant to pay 100 percent of the children's private school tuition until they complete high school and to pay for "all work related day care expenses and summer day camp and extracurricular activities." In addition, the court ordered the defendant to "maintain and pay for all medical and dental insurance for the benefit of the children ... and 100 percent of all unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontia, optical and psychological expenses." The court did not enter an order regarding payment of the children's college expenses, but reserved jurisdiction to enter such an order at the appropriate time.

In entering the financial orders, the trial court explained that it had considered "all of the statutory criteria set forth in ... § 46b-84 as to support of a minor child, § 46b-215a-1 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, as to child support ... and General Statutes § 46b-82, as to the award of alimony...." The court acknowledged, however, that the child support award departed from the schedule contained in the guidelines, which does not address circumstances in which the combined net weekly income of the parties exceeds $4000, because of "the defendant's substantial assets, the defendant's superior earning capacity, the extraordinary disparity in parental income and the significant and essential needs of the plaintiff including, but not limited to, the need to provide a home for the children." The court further noted that it had not considered the defendant's yearly noncash compensation, consisting of $530,000 in stock options and restricted stock for the year 2005, in making the alimony and child support awards. Judgment was entered on June 12, 2006, and this appeal followed.

We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review. "The well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases is that this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts.... As has often been explained, the foundation for this standard is that the trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the personal factors significant to a domestic relations case...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Simms v. Simms, 283 Conn. 494, 502, 927 A.2d 894 (2007), quoting Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 739, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994). "In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733, 740, 785 A.2d 197 (2001). "Notwithstanding the great deference accorded the trial court in dissolution proceedings, a trial court's ruling ... may be reversed if, in the exercise of its discretion, the trial court applies the wrong standard of law." Borkowski v. Borkowski, supra, at 740, 638 A.2d 1060. The question of whether, and to what extent, the child support guidelines apply, however, is a question of law over which this court should exercise plenary review. See In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502, 506, 939 A.2d 9 ("the application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review"), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914, 945 A.2d 976 (2008); Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law).

I NET CASH BONUS AWARD

The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly ordered him to pay 20 percent of his annual net cash bonus award as child support. He claims that the order was inconsistent with the guidelines and that the court's proffered justification for its deviation from the guidelines was contrary to law. He further claims that the order was improper because it was not based on the needs of the children and thus amounts to disguised alimony. The plaintiff responds that the trial court is not bound by the...