Medvey v. Medvey, No. 26234.
Decision Date | 31 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 26234. |
Citation | 908 A.2d 1119,98 Conn.App. 278 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Patricia MEDVEY v. Robert E. MEDVEY. |
Gerald H. Kahn, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
George J. Markley, Fairfield with whom, on the brief, was Michael A. Meyers, for the appellee (plaintiff).
FLYNN, C.J., and DiPENTIMA and FOTI, Js.
The defendant, Robert E. Medvey, appeals from the trial court's judgment modifying the parties' financial orders and holding him in contempt for his failure to pay alimony in accordance with the terms of the parties' dissolution judgment. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion when it (1) relied on his gross income rather than his net income in modifying the alimony order, (2) awarded the plaintiff, Patricia Medvey, attorney's fees and (3) awarded the plaintiff expert witness fees.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the defendant's appeal. The marriage of the parties was dissolved by judgment of the court on May 26, 1998. A stipulated financial agreement (agreement) addressing alimony payment to the plaintiff was incorporated into the dissolution judgment. Pursuant to that agreement, the defendant was to pay the plaintiff base alimony in the amount of $25,000 a year in twenty-four equal installments. In addition to the base alimony, the defendant also was required to pay the plaintiff as "additional alimony" a sum equal to one third of all "Line 7 income" in excess of $130,000, which was a specific reference to line seven of schedule C of the defendant's 1997 Internal Revenue Service form 1040. The agreement contained language reflecting the parties intent that "all of the [defendant's] earned income shall be subject to the [plaintiff's] alimony rights." Earned income was defined in the agreement as "income paid to the [defendant] in consideration for goods, services or work performed or provided by him."
The defendant adhered to the payment schedule set forth in the agreement with regard to base alimony and additional alimony from 1998 through 2001. In January, 2002, the defendant discontinued making payments for additional alimony.2 Thereafter, both parties presented a series of motions addressing alimony, including a motion filed by the plaintiff on November 21, 2002, to hold the defendant in contempt for his alleged failure to pay additional alimony in 2002 pursuant to the agreement. On March 3, 2003, the court, Hon. Edgar W. Bassick III, judge trial referee, ruled on the contempt motion, and found the defendant in contempt and awarded the plaintiff additional alimony in the amount of $67,887.95. The court also awarded attorney's fees to be paid to the plaintiff in the amount of $7500.3
On August 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt relating to the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the court's March 3, 2003 order. On August 24, 2004, the defendant filed another motion for modification with respect to alimony. By memorandum of decision filed November 18, 2004, the court, Hon. Howard T. Owens, judge trial referee, ruled on the outstanding motions for modification submitted by both parties and the plaintiff's motion for contempt. In that ruling, the court modified the dissolution judgment with respect to alimony and found the defendant in contempt, awarding the plaintiff $4500 for attorney's fees and $5000 for expert witness fees. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary to resolve the issues presented.
As a preliminary matter, we set forth our standard of review. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dombrowski v. Noyes-Dombrowski, 273 Conn. 127, 132, 869 A.2d 164 (2005). With these principles in mind, we now turn to the defendant's specific claims.
The defendant's first claim on appeal is that the court improperly relied on his gross income rather than his net income when modifying the dissolution judgment with respect to alimony. Specifically, the defendant claims that because the court referred only to gross income and did not mention net income in its memorandum of decision, its order was based solely on gross income and was therefore improper. We disagree.
In his memorandum of decision, Judge Owens found a substantial change in circumstances "warranting a modification of the alimony formula set up in the stipulation of the parties at the time of the dissolution" and then made the following order: 4
As this court most recently has restated, Hughes v. Hughes, 95 Conn.App. 200, 204, 895 A.2d 274, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 902, 907 A.2d 90 (2006).
In Hughes, we acknowledged that Id., at 208, 895 A.2d 274. Adhering to that principle in Hughes, we inferred that when the court did not specifically state that it was fashioning its financial orders on the basis of its consideration of net income but had before it ample evidence of the parties' net income, "the court considered the relevant statutory factors and all of the evidence submitted by the parties." Id.
In this case, Judge Owens had before him financial affidavits and relevant tax returns from both parties. That documentary evidence, coupled with the testimony presented by the plaintiff's expert, Richard Finkel, a forensic accountant, adequately apprised the court of the defendant's financial status. Referring to the recent order and findings of Judge Bassick, the court noted that On the basis of our review of the evidence submitted to the court by the parties, we infer that the court was aware of both the gross and net incomes of the defendant and fashioned its financial order on the basis of that evidence. Although the court's modification order directs the defendant to pay 18 percent of his "gross income," it qualified that directive by stating that the "flat percent will simplify the determination of the amount of alimony due." Upon review of the record, we note that the defendant essentially was requesting the court to modify the alimony formula, which he now challenges on appeal. As set forth in the parties' original agreement at the time of dissolution, that formula provided for additional alimony payments based on a percentage of "any amounts of income in excess of $130,000. . . ."5
In light of the evidence presented and the findings of the court, we cannot conclude that the court based its order on the plaintiff's gross income. Rather, we conclude that its order was a function of gross income. By "function of gross income," we mean that the court used gross income to calculate its orders, which is distinguishable from the court basing its order on gross income. Cf. Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299, 306-307, 811 A.2d 1283 (2003) (); see also Greco v. Greco, 82 Conn.App. 768, 773, 847 A.2d 1017 (2004) (), aff'd, 275 Conn. 348, 880 A.2d 872 (2005); Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355, 358, 780 A.2d 198 (2001) (). As this court emphasized in Hughes, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leonova v. Leonov
...every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Medvey v. Medvey , 98 Conn. App. 278, 281, 908 A.2d 1119 (2006) ; see id. (abuse of discretion standard applied to claim court improperly relied on gross, rather than net, income of ......
-
O. A. v. J. A.
...awards of attorney's fees and expert witness fees as within trial court's sound discretion under § 46b-62 ); Medvey v. Medvey , 98 Conn. App. 278, 287–88, 908 A.2d 1119 (2006) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff expert witness fees under § 46b-62 ......
-
Gentile v. Carneiro
...of litigation, including expert witness fees. See Eslami v. Eslami, 218 Conn. 801, 819-21, 591 A.2d 411 (1991); Medvey v. Medvey, 98 Conn. App. 278, 287, 908 A.2d 1119 (2006). The criteria to be considered in determining whether an award of attorney's fees appropriate include "the age, heal......
-
Langley v. Langley
...gross income to calculate its orders, which is distinguishable from the court basing its order on gross income.” Medvey v. Medvey, 98 Conn.App. 278, 284, 908 A.2d 1119 (2006). In Hughes v. Hughes, supra, 95 Conn.App. at 207, 895 A.2d 274, this court “found no case in which an order for supp......
-
Developments in Connecticut Family Law: 2006
...See, e.g., Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn. App. 355, 780 A.2d 198 (2001), and Collette v. Collette, 177 Conn. 465, 418 A.2d 891 (1979). 32. 98 Conn. App. 278, 908 A.2d 1119 (2006). 33. Id. at 282. 34. Id. at 283. 35. 96 Conn. App. 102, 899 A.2d 670 (2006). 36. Id. at 107. 37. Id. at 107- 108. 3......