Olson v. Olson
| Docket Number | AC 44033 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 2022 |
| Citation | 214 Conn.App. 4,279 A.3d 230 |
| Parties | Cheryl Abbott OLSON v. Brian Matthew OLSON |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Alexander J. Cuda, Westport, for the appellant (defendant).
Thomas M. Shanley, Greenwich, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Elgo, Clark and Bishop, Js.
The defendant, Brian Matthew Olson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff, Cheryl Abbott Olson, in which the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the parties’ spousal support order that had been issued by a court of the United Kingdom. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion for modification of alimony on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and argues that (1) the court misapplied the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, General Statutes § 46b-301 et seq., in determining that the United Kingdom had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the spousal support order; (2) the United Kingdom could not have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction because it lost its exclusiveness when the trial court, S. Richards, J. , decided motions to modify alimony in 2013; (3) the application of the doctrine of comity demonstrates that Connecticut courts have jurisdiction to modify the foreign country order in this case; (4) the trial court erred in its reliance on this court's decision in Hornblower v. Hornblower , 151 Conn. App. 332, 94 A.3d 1218 (2014) ; and (5) the court erroneously relied on a United Kingdom statutory instrument, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) Order 2007, in determining that the United Kingdom had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the support order. On the basis of our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we agree with the defendant that the court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the spousal support order at issue. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The parties, who are United States citizens,
were married on May 30, 1998, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. The parties later moved to the United Kingdom and were present there in November, 2009. On December 16, 2009, a court of the United Kingdom dissolved the parties’ marriage and incorporated the parties’ November 19, 2009 consent order into its final judgment. The consent order was a separation agreement, which provided for the distribution of the parties’ property and assets and for the payment of spousal and child support.
In or around 2010, the parties moved back to the United States. The plaintiff relocated to Connecticut and the defendant moved to New York. On April 5, 2010, the plaintiff filed the United Kingdom divorce decree with the trial court in Connecticut under principles of comity. On January 25, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order to enforce the parties’ foreign judgment of dissolution and approve two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared by an attorney retained by both parties. On March 7, 2011, the court, Wenzel, J. , granted, by agreement of the parties, the plaintiff's motion for order to enforce judgment, postjudgment, and entered the two QDROs as orders of the court.
Subsequently, in May, 2011, the plaintiff sought a modification of alimony in the Superior Court for the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk. She argued, among other things, that the parties’ marital judgment provides that "[e]ither party will remain at liberty during the continuation of the periodical payments to apply for an upward or downward variation, or termination or capitalism of such maintenance." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Accordingly, she argued that a "substantial change of circumstances has arisen since the entry of the orders of the [United Kingdom] court on December 16, 2009, in that the defendant's income from
employment, salary, and bonus structure have significantly changed such that the plaintiff's receipt of alimony is greatly reduced based upon the present formula."
On July 5, 2012, the defendant similarly sought a modification of the spousal support order in the same court as the plaintiff's filing, alleging that the plaintiff began living with another person, resulting in a change in the circumstances contemplated in General Statutes § 46b-86 (b).
The trial court, S. Richards, J. , considered the motions for modification but ultimately denied them in a memorandum of decision dated October 4, 2013. The court did not deny the motions for modification on the basis of a want of jurisdiction; rather, the motions were denied because of a failure of supporting evidence and procedural defects in the plaintiff's motion.1 The court stated that the The court similarly denied the defendant's motion for modification, concluding that the "defendant did not provide the court with any evidence of the applicable substantive law of the controlling jurisdiction that would permit the modification of alimony on the basis
of a showing of cohabitation or a substantial change in circumstances pursuant to Connecticut law." However, the court exercised jurisdiction over the marital judgment by ordering the defendant to make specific payments in accordance with it, to wit, payments of $8552 and $184,479, which represented the plaintiff's share of certain stock owed to her.
On August 19, 2019, the defendant filed a new motion for modification of alimony asking the court to modify alimony due to the plaintiff's cohabitation. On September 11, 2019, the plaintiff also filed her own motion to modify alimony and child support seeking an increase of both. In October, 2019, the parties worked with the caseflow office of the Superior Court for the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk to schedule the motions to be heard on January 28, 2020.
On January 23, 2020, five days before the scheduled hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the defendant's motion to modify alimony, arguing for the first time that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the judgment. On January 27, 2020, the defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion through which he argued, inter alia, that the court had jurisdiction to consider the motion and that "the plaintiff's position sets up a double standard that cannot possibly be sustained: that when the plaintiff sought modification of the existing alimony order in 2011, this court had jurisdiction to consider such motion but now that the defendant seeks the same relief, the court lacks jurisdiction to act." (Emphasis omitted.) He argued that the "plaintiff's sole purpose in filing the motion to dismiss is to delay the impending hearing on the defendant's motion to modify.... If the plaintiff genuinely had a question as to this court's subject matter jurisdiction, that objection would have, and should have, been raised in 2010 when the plaintiff asked this court to domesticate the judgment, in 2011 when the plaintiff
filed her first motion to modify alimony, or prior to the plaintiff filing her pending motion seeking a modification of alimony and child support, rather than five days before the scheduled hearing." (Emphasis omitted.) The defendant also noted that the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss solely with respect to the defendant's motion for modification despite her also having filed a motion for modification.
In a memorandum of decision dated February 21, 2020, the trial court, McLaughlin, J. , concluded that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the parties’ foreign country spousal support order on the basis of its belief that the United Kingdom had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over it. In particular, the court stated that, "under the United Kingdom's Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) Order 2007 ([REMO]), the courts of the United Kingdom keep exclusive jurisdiction over all maintenance orders." In support of this conclusion, the court quoted the explanatory note to the REMO, which states in relevant part: "The principal modification effected by [the REMO] is that a maintenance order made in the United States of America may not be varied or revoked in the United Kingdom and that a maintenance order made in the United Kingdom may not be varied or revoked in the United States of America (see sections 5 and 9 in Schedule 2)." The court, however, recognized that the explanatory note is not a part of the REMO itself. The court then stated: "Neither party provided the court with evidence that the courts of the United Kingdom have released or waived their exclusive jurisdiction to modify the maintenance orders in the consent order. While the court recognizes that all parties currently reside in the United States of America, including the minor children, which may make modification of support orders more complicated, based on the clear language of [General Statutes] § 46b-321 (b),
this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to modify the United Kingdom's spousal support orders." The defendant timely appealed.
This case requires us to interpret the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to determine whether Connecticut courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to modify...
To continue reading
Request your trial