Schwarz v. Schwarz - 124 Conn. App. 472, 5 A.3d 548 (2010)

Rule:

Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding motions for modification. Modification of alimony, after the date of a dissolution judgment, is governed by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-86. When the disputed issue is alimony, the applicable provision of the statute is § 46b-86(a), which provides that a final order for alimony may be modified by the trial court upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party. The party seeking modification bears the burden of showing the existence of a substantial change in the circumstances. The change may be in the circumstances of either party. The date of the most recent prior proceeding in which an alimony order was entered is the appropriate date to use in determining whether a significant change in circumstances warrants a modification of an alimony award.

Facts:

The parties' twenty-nine year marriage was dissolved on February 23, 2005. At the time of dissolution, the parties filed a separation agreement, which was incorporated by reference into the dissolution decree. Paragraph three of the agreement provided that the defendant shall pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $ 2000 per week until the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage. In 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the agreement, requesting an increase in alimony because of a substantial change in the financial circumstances of both parties. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's financial circumstances substantially had improved as a result of an increase in his income and his remarriage and that her financial circumstances had deteriorated as a result of a substantial increase in the cost of premiums for her health insurance coverage, which she was unable to pay. The trial court granted the modification and increased the defendant’s obligation from $ 2,000 per week to $ 2,175 per week. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it found that the increase in his income constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of alimony because the increase was less than the 15 % contemplated by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-86(a). The defendant also claimed that the trial court improperly increased the award of alimony after concluding that he met his burden based on the plaintiff living with another person.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the trial court err in ordering the increase of defendant’s alimony obligation? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court concluded that the defendant’s reliance on § 46b-86(a) was misplaced, as the reference to a substantial deviation did not refer to a change in income of a party but, rather, to a final order of the court that deviated from the child support guidelines. The appellate court further found that the defendant’s gross income increased 20 % and his net income increased 13 %, which alone was sufficient basis for a finding of a substantial change in circumstances. The appellate court also held that under the circumstances, the increase was proper because the ex-wife had increased financial needs, arising from her health insurance costs, that were not being met by her cohabitation.