Skip to main content
· 7/2/2024

M. S. v. M. S.

Citations

  • 226 Conn. App. 482

Syllabus

The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying her postdissolution motion for contempt. In June, 2017, approxi- mately three years after the judgment of dissolution, the court approved an agreement of the parties setting the plaintiff's child support obligation at $2600 per month until June 30, 2019, and ordered that, after that date, child support would be modified on the basis of the child support guidelines. Thereafter, the defendant filed motions for modification and for contempt, alleging that, although the parties had been directed to recalculate child support payments on June 30, 2019, in accordance with the guidelines, the plaintiff unilaterally had decreased his child support payments in accordance with his own calculations. Subse- quently, the court issued an order in March, 2021, which modified the plaintiff's child support obligations prospectively to $495 per week. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for contempt alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff was in contempt of the court's June, 2017 order, in that the $2600 monthly payment order had remained in effect until the court's March, 2021 order, that he had unilaterally reduced the amount of his child support payments in July, 2019, and that he owed an arrearage. The court denied the motion for contempt and entered remedial orders limited to the plaintiff's compliance with the March, 2021 order to pay $495 per week. The defendant claimed on appeal that the court misinterpreted the June, 2017 order. Held that, although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find the plaintiff in contempt, the court erred in failing to determine the amount of the plaintiff's arrearage attributable to his noncompliance with the June, 2017 child support order: the plaintiff was obligated to pay $2600 monthly from July 1, 2019, until the court-ordered modification in March, 2021, as the terms of

Judges: Alvord; Cradle; Suarez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.