Renstrup v. Renstrup

• Citation: 217 Conn.App. 252,287 A.3d 1095
• Decision Date: 17 January 2023
• Docket Number: AC 44489
• Parties: Hedyeh RENSTRUP v. Jens RENSTRUP
• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut

217 Conn.App. 252

287 A.3d 1095

Hedyeh RENSTRUP

v.Jens RENSTRUP

AC 44489

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 13, 2022

Officially released January 17, 2023

Campbell D. Barrett, with whom were Stacie L. Provencher, and, on the brief, Johanna S. Katz, Jon T. Kukucka, and Kelly A. Scott, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).

Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom was Michael S. Taylor, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Bright, C. J., and Moll and Vertefeuille, Js.

BRIGHT, C. J.

The defendant, Jens Renstrup, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Hedyeh Renstrup, and entering certain financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) calculated its basic child support award, (2) issued an open-ended, uncapped percentage based supplemental child support award, (3) issued an open-ended, uncapped supplemental alimony award, (4) based both of its supplemental awards on a clearly erroneous finding that the defendant's bonus income had a "cap" of 30 percent of his base salary, and (5) included certain unvested shares and stock options in its distribution of marital property.¹ We conclude that the court erred in its child support and alimony orders and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial on all financial orders.²

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the present appeal. The defendant was fifty-five years old at the time of trial. He holds a medical degree, earned in 1991, as well as a master's degree in business, earned in 1993. The plaintiff was thirty-eight years old at the time of trial. She earned a bachelor's degree in information technology in 2004.

In its corrected memorandum of decision, the court found the following facts. "The parties first met each other in Denmark in 2005, and thereafter began dating and living together in that country. They subsequently moved to New Jersey when the defendant accepted an employment offer in the United States. In 2008, the parties very briefly returned to Denmark for their wedding ceremony, which took place on August 16. In 2010, the defendant accepted an offer of employment from ... a pharmaceutical company. As a result, the parties relocated to Belgium for five years. The parties had two children born issue of the marriage while residing in Belgium. ...

"In 2015, the parties and their children returned to the United States when the defendant secured employment with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alexion), located in New Haven, Connecticut. The defendant was hired as the head of the company's global affairs. He held that position for close to three years until the company laid him off as part of a management change. His period of unemployment coincided with [his] diagnosis of ... heart issues, and he received disability benefits for several months. Once he had recovered, the defendant was hired as the chief medical officer by Springworks Therapeutics, Inc. (Springworks), a relatively new pharmaceutical company located in Stamford, Connecticut. Springworks went public on the NASDAQ exchange on Friday, September 13, 2019."

Pursuant to the defendant's written employment agreement with Springworks, he was to receive a base salary, an annual performance bonus, and incentive equity in Springworks in the form of stock options. The defendant's base salary for 2019 was $403,650 and he was eligible for a cash bonus targeted at 30 percent of his base income, although Springworks could "make upward adjustments in the targeted amount of [the] annual performance bonus." The defendant also received 1,608,556 stock options. The defendant was awarded 25 percent of his stock options on July 16, 2019, and was entitled to receive the remaining 75 percent in thirty-six equal monthly installments, so long as he remained employed by Springworks. The defendant also was awarded 92,775 shares of stock options per the option grant dated March 28, 2019, and 620,602 stock options per the option granted April 22, 2019, with a vesting commencement date of April 22, 2019. Pursuant to the public offering of Springworks, at the time of trial the defendant had rights to 244,424 shares, 14,097 stock options, and 94,302 stock options in Springworks’ publicly traded stock. In addition to income from employment, the defendant also received annual income from a 25 percent ownership of a real estate investment property. The plaintiff had not worked outside of the home since March, 2009.³

On August 22, 2017, the plaintiff commenced the underlying dissolution action against the defendant. The matter was tried to the court, Hon. Gerard I. Adelman , judge trial referee, over the course of four days, beginning on August 27, 2019, and concluding on September 18, 2019.⁴

In its memorandum of decision,⁵ the court dissolved the parties’ marriage and entered child custody and financial orders.⁶ As to custody, the court awarded the parties joint legal custody of their two minor children and ordered that the children's primary residence be with the plaintiff. As to child support, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff (1) basic child support in the amount of $1000 per week and (2) supplemental child support equal to 17.71 percent of the after-tax amounts of any bonuses and other income earned by the defendant.

The court awarded the plaintiff alimony for a period of ten years, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $1750 per week for the first 104 weeks, $1500 per week for the next 104 weeks, and $1000 per week for the remaining 312 weeks. In addition, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff supplemental alimony in the amount of 17.71 percent of the after-tax amounts of any bonuses and other income earned by the defendant in any year in which he has an alimony obligation to the plaintiff.

In dividing the marital property, the court determined that the defendant's unvested Springworks shares and stock options were marital property subject to distribution. The court awarded the plaintiff "50 percent of [the defendant's] remaining unvested Springworks stock, or 91,656 unvested shares, and 60 percent ... of 14,097 stock options dated March 29, 2019, and 60 percent of his 94,302 stock options dated April 22, 2019 ... more specifically 8458 and 56,581." The court further ordered that, if the defendant's employment with Springworks terminated before all of the unvested shares or stock options to which he was entitled pursuant to his employment agreement vested, "then there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any employment that the defendant subsequently obtains with a new employer includes compensation to the defendant for his Springworks shares and/or options, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay to the plaintiff an amount equal to the value of the plaintiff's interest in the [unvested] Springworks shares and/or options as if they had vested in full." This appeal followed.

Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

"The standard of review in domestic relations cases is well established. [T]his 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 .... 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. ... 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. ... 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." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Zheng v. Xia , 204 Conn. App. 302, 309, 253 A.3d 69 (2021) ; see also Dowling v. Szymczak , 309 Conn. 390, 399, 72 A.3d 1 (2013). Furthermore, although the trial court is vested with broad discretion in domestic relations matters, with respect to child support, "the parameters of the court's discretion have been somewhat limited by the factors set forth in the child support guidelines." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colbert v. Carr , 140 Conn. App. 229, 240, 57 A.3d 878, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 926, 64 A.3d 333 (2013).

I

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in crafting its child support orders. Specifically, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) calculated his basic child support obligation by failing to allocate properly the total amount of child support among the parties as required by the child support guidelines, (2) deviated from the child support guidelines without making the requisite findings, and (3) ordered an open-ended, uncapped percentage based supplemental child support award. We agree with all of the defendant's claims.

We begin with the child support guidelines; Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-1 et seq. ; and our case law interpreting the guidelines. General Statutes § 46b-84 provides in relevant part: "(a) Upon or subsequent to the ... dissolution of any marriage ... the parents of a minor child of the marriage, shall maintain the child according to their respective abilities, if the child is in need of maintenance. Any post judgment procedure afforded by chapter 906 shall be available to secure the present and future financial interests of a party in connection with a final order for the periodic payment of child support. ...

"(d) In determining whether a child is in need of maintenance and, if in need, the respective abilities of the parents to provide such maintenance and the...