Increased Salary Justifies Child Support Modification

If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

The plaintiff appealed a decision by the CT Appellate Court denying plaintiff’s upward modification of child support. The Appellate court affirmed this denial, concluding that the modification of child support was subject to the same requirement for the modification of alimony. On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, and found that the appellate court incorrectly applied case law in equating child support to alimony.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2007. In the dissolution judgment, the court found that the defendant was a vice president at Electric Boat Corporation, with a base salary of 225,420 as well as an annual bonus and stock options. The plaintiff was a highly skilled and capable corporate attorney, and despite working part-time, earned a gross income of $78,500 in 2007. The dissolution judgment ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $439 per week in child support for the parties’ minor two children. The parties would each pay 50 percent of the cost of the children’s child care expenses, including private school tuition.

In May, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for modification to raise child support from $439 per week to $1700 per week based on an increase in the supporting spouse’s salary. The defendant made a respective motion to reduce child support, as the children had passed the age of eighteen. In Dan v. Dan, an increase in salary alone does not justify an upward modification of alimony. In this respect, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and instead lowered the child support to $400 in favor of the defendant.

On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision to apply the modification requirements of alimony to child support. Rather, determination of a parent’s child support obligation must account for all of the income that would have been available to support the children had the family remained together. Here, the defendant’s exercise of his stock options constituted a substantial increase in his gross income.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.
Source: McKeon v. Lennon, 321 Conn. LEXIS 118 (May 17, 2016)