Simpson v. Simpson
Citations
- 352 Conn. 81
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had reversed in part the trial court's rulings on certain of the parties' postdissolution judgment motions, including the plaintiff's motion for modification of child support and alimony based on an allegedly substantial change in the defendant's income. Those rulings led to the issuance of remedial orders concerning the defendant's obligation to pay additional child support and alimony under the parties' separation agreement, which had been incorporated into the dissolution judgment. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claimed that the Appellate Court had incorrectly concluded that the relevant provisions of the parties' separation agreement unambiguously relieved the defendant of the obligation to pay additional child support and alimony on the amount of his gross income, including his base draw, bonuses, and profit sharing, in excess of $700,000. Held: Contrary to the Appellate Court's conclusion, the provisions of the separation agreement relating to the defendant's obligation to pay additional child support and alimony based on bonuses and profit sharing beyond the defen- dant's base salary were ambiguous, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court's judgment was reversed in part and the case was remanded for consideration of extrinsic evidence with respect to the parties' intent concerning those provisions of the separation agreement. Because both parties set forth a plausible construction of the relevant provi- sions of the separation agreement, with both constructions having bases in the language used in the agreement, this court concluded that the agreement was ambiguous, with its meaning presenting a question of fact for the trial court to consider and resolve. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court to resolve the ambigu- ity in the relevant provisions of the separation agreement through a determi- 82 JUNE, 2025 352 Conn. 81 Simpson v. Sim
Judges: D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Seeley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court· 2001-05-29· cited 3,343×
- Remillard v. RemillardSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-07-13· cited 67×
- Association Resources, Inc. v. WallSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-31· cited 66×
- Isham v. IshamSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-06-23· cited 39×
- Dougan v. DouganSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-07-05· cited 25×
- McTiernan v. McTiernanConnecticut Appellate Court· 2016-04-14· cited 18×
- Bijur v. BijurConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-10-07· cited 15×
- Grogan v. PenzaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-10-29· cited 7×
- Barton v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-07-04· cited 6×
- Halperin v. HalperinConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-03-24· cited 4×
- Wells v. WellsConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-03-03· cited 1×
- Labieniec v. MegnaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-09-17· cited 1×
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.