Fisher v. Fisher

Citations: 28 Conn. App. 483; 611 A.2d 440; 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 306Docket: 10082

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; August 4, 1992; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The defendant appeals a trial court judgment that modified an award of periodic alimony, which had previously been adjusted three times since the dissolution of marriage in 1984. The defendant contests the trial court's findings of a substantial change in circumstances, the reliance on needs as of 1986 for the orders, and adherence to statutory procedures for the plaintiff's modification motion. Conversely, the plaintiff cross-appeals, arguing the court improperly neglected to consider the defendant's inheritance and ruled that the alimony reduction would not be retroactive. 

Key facts include the initial alimony award of $2,400 per month in 1986, which was increased to $4,800 per month in 1990. The plaintiff's current motion for modification, filed in 1990, was decided on March 13, 1991, reinstating the 1986 orders. The defendant claims that the plaintiff's financial status had not deteriorated since the last modification. The plaintiff's claims for modification cited a $149,541.45 inheritance received by the defendant and a decline in the plaintiff's assets. 

Prior findings indicated the plaintiff had significant saleable assets totaling $1,447,800, but the 1991 ruling recognized that these assets, particularly a stock and a mortgage note, had lost value or become worthless. The trial court's determinations are given substantial weight, emphasizing the importance of correct findings in modification actions. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The trial court's decisions are upheld unless there is an abuse of discretion or a lack of reasonable factual basis. The appellate court affirmed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding a substantial change in circumstances since the 1990 modification. The court found that new orders were properly made based on this substantial change. However, it held that the trial court improperly reverted to the circumstances from 1986 instead of assessing the current situation under the statutory criteria for modification of alimony and support as outlined in General Statutes § 46b-82. The court emphasized that modifications must reflect the current financial needs and resources of both parties, as established by General Statutes § 46b-86. The plaintiff's claim regarding the defendant's inheritance was noted, although the trial court expressed uncertainty about it constituting a sufficient change in circumstances. The appellate court observed that the trial court's discretion is substantial, and conclusions must be legally correct and reasonably supported by evidence. Ultimately, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusions, leading to a remand for reevaluation of the current circumstances in light of the statutory criteria.

The plaintiff contends that the trial court initially recognized the need for retroactive alimony but later retracted its decision improperly. Both parties agree that retroactive alimony can be granted from the date a motion for modification is filed, as permitted by General Statutes § 46b-86, effective October 1, 1990. The defendant argues that while the court has discretion to grant retroactive increases in alimony, it should not extend the same discretion to retroactive reductions. The plaintiff claims the court abused its discretion by not making the reduced alimony award retroactive. However, the appellate court refrains from addressing this issue, as it may become moot due to a remand following a direct appeal. Citing Graham v. Graham, the court emphasizes it does not resolve moot issues that lack practical relief. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

During oral arguments, there was an agreement that the trial judge found the change in circumstances justifying the modification was unforeseen at the time of dissolution, necessitating an affirmation of the modified alimony amount of $4800 per month, with a pending appeal from this finding. Relevant legislative provisions are noted, including that modifications can occur upon demonstrating substantial changes in circumstances, whether anticipated at dissolution or not, as per P.A. 87-104. The Supreme Court's clarification on the retrospective application of modifications to alimony orders is also mentioned, reversing the precedent set in Darak v. Darak. The court identifies that the assessment of alimony must consider various factors, including the financial circumstances of both parties. Finally, the court indicates that evidence regarding the defendant’s debts was presented, consistent with General Statutes § 46b-86(a), which restricts retroactive modifications except when a motion for modification is pending.