Pite v. Pite
Decision Date | 29 May 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 33421.,33421. |
Citation | 135 Conn.App. 819,43 A.3d 229 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Faith Whitehead PITE v. William J. PITE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William F. Gallagher, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Hugh D. Hughes, for the appellant (defendant).
Daniel J. Krisch, Hartford, with whom were Jean L. Welty, New Haven, and, on the brief, Karen L. Dowd, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
LAVINE, BEAR and SHELDON, Js.
The defendant, William J. Pite, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to modify the duration of periodic alimony filed by the plaintiff, Faith Whitehead Pite, and denying the motion to modify and terminate child support filed by the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in modifying the time limited periodic alimony and in declining to modify and terminate the defendant's child support obligation in light of the defendant's payment of their daughter's private school tuition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The original dissolution judgment, rendered on February 20, 2001, provided, in relevant part, in paragraph four, that the Specifically as to the defendant's profit sharing plan, the judgment also provided, in paragraph ten: On March 22, 2001, the court modified paragraph ten of the judgment, explaining:
After the defendant filed an appeal from the court's judgment of dissolution, he and the plaintiff entered into an agreement to modify the dissolution judgment. The stipulated agreement provided, in relevant part, that paragraph ten would be modified as follows: The court approved the stipulation on August 13, 2002, thereby modifying the dissolution judgment. The parties also agreed to the withdrawal of the defendant's appeal.
On March 4, 2010, approximately one month before her sixtieth birthday, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify alimony, postjudgment. She claimed that the “market conditions resulted in a substantial reduction in the value of the defendant's retirement assets ... [such that she now was] unable to support herself through the interest awarded to her in the defendant's profit sharing plan, which is substantially changed from the situation anticipated by the court in making the alimony award.” The defendant objected on the ground that the judgment ordered periodic alimony that would terminate on the plaintiff's sixtieth birthday. The defendant also filed a motion seeking, in part, to modify and terminate child support on the ground that the parties' daughter was attending private school and that the defendant was paying her tuition.
On May 3, 2011, the court issued the following orders:
“[2] Child support shall be modified to $241 per week retroactive to [May 16, 2009] (date of service of the modification).
This appeal followed.
The defendant first claims that the court erred “in granting the [plaintiff's] motion for modification of alimony where the effect of the court's order was to transform limited duration alimony into lifetime alimony.” He argues that this case is distinguishable from Scoville v. Scoville, 179 Conn. 277, 426 A.2d 271 (1979) ( ), or, in the alternative, that Scoville should be overruled. He also argues that even if Scoville applies, the court in this case abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to modify alimony. We conclude that this case is controlled by Scoville, that we have no authority to overrule Supreme Court precedent and that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to modify alimony.
As a preliminary matter, we set forth our standard of review. 1 (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schwarz v. Schwarz, 124 Conn.App. 472, 476, 5 A.3d 548, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 909, 10 A.3d 525 (2010).
Because we are concerned, in this part of our analysis, with whether the alimony provision in the dissolution judgment was nonmodifiable, we employ the following standard. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sheehan v. Balasic, 46 Conn.App. 327, 332, 699 A.2d 1036 (1997), appeal dismissed, 245 Conn. 148, 710 A.2d 770 (1998).
Section 46b–86 (a) (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rau v. Rau, 37 Conn.App. 209, 211–12, 655 A.2d 800 (1995).
The defendant first argues that this case is not controlled by Scoville. In Scoville, the trial court had awarded alimony in the dissolution judgment in the amount of $100 per week for three years. Scoville v. Scoville, supra, 179 Conn. at 277, 426 A.2d 271. The judgment provided that “[a]t the end of the three year period, the payment order of alimony shall terminate.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for modification, which the court denied on the ground that the award was nonmodifiable, being of fixed duration. Id., at 278, 426 A.2d 271. On appeal, the Supreme Court explained that the alimony order was an ambiguous order and that it had treated similar orders...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nation-Bailey v. Bailey
...and child support upon a finding of cohabitation by the plaintiff.” Citing, inter alia, the Appellate Court's decision in Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn.App. 819, 43 A.3d 229, cert. denied, 306 Conn. 901, 52 A.3d 728 (2012), the plaintiff argues that this was an improper construction because the ag......
-
State v. Flanagan
...say on matters of Connecticut law and that the Appellate Court and Superior Court are bound by [its] precedent). Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn.App. 819, 826–27, 43 A.3d 229 (2012).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smalls, 136 Conn.App. 197, 203 n. 4, 44 A.3d 866, cert. granted on othe......
-
Youngman v. Schiavone
...court ... we are not at liberty to overrule, reevaluate or reexamine controlling precedent of our Supreme Court.” Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn.App. 819, 826, 43 A.3d 229, cert. denied, 306 Conn. 901, 52 A.3d 728 (2012).9 We are mindful, however, that the same sort of mistake at issue here, namely......
-
Light v. Grimes
...Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding motions for modification.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn.App. 819, 824, 43 A.3d 229, cert. denied, 306 Conn. 901, 52 A.3d 728 (2012).“[General Statutes § ] 46b–86 governs the modification or termination of an alimon......