Amy Tisler nka Amy Inlow–Tisler v. Justin Tisler (2011)

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On January 19, 2011 this court issued a Memorandum of Decision on various post-judgment motions filed by the parties.   The motions filed by both plaintiff and defendant had sought modification of alimony and child support, as well as findings of contempt and attorneys fees with regard to various alimony and child support obligations.   The motions were heard by the court on November 24, 2010.   On December 3, 2010 by agreement, the evidence was reopened and additional testimony and evidence received by the court.   On February 7 and February 8, 2011 the defendant and plaintiff, respectively, filed motions to reargue and/or articulate.

The court, after considering the two motions to reargue, granted them and heard additional argument on March 30, 2011.   Based on such reargument, the court amends, modifies and corrects its January 19, 2011 decision as follows:

Both sides have raised concerns over the correctness of the court findings as to the net income of the respective parties presented at the top of page 6 in the January 19 Memorandum.   After reviewing the moving papers, exhibits and financial affidavits, it is clear that though the Memorandum of Decision refers to certain figures as the net income of the respective parties, the actual numbers used by the court reflect gross income.   This appears to be a situation unlike Lodgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355 (2001), where the court expressly utilized gross income figures.   In this case, the court referred to net income and intended to state net income but utilized the figures from the wrong line of an exhibit.   Clearly this is an error on the part of the court and an appropriate issue to be addressed on a motion to reargue.

In reviewing the evidence presented to the court from which net income must be determined and during argument on the motion to reopen, it became apparent that neither the financial affidavits nor the child support guideline worksheets presented by the parties accurately stated the income of the parties.   To address that deficiency and to present an appropriate baseline in the case of any motions for modification, the court will set forth in greater detail the basis for its calculations.

First the court notes that the figures stating the plaintiff's gross income, both on her financial affidavit and on her worksheet reflect an annual salary of $100,000.   This figure clearly failed to reflect a $6,500 bonus received by the plaintiff in 2010 and a July 2010 award of stock which stock had an ascertainable value of $13,000 at the time of trial.   The plaintiff during oral argument on the motion for reconsideration admitted the $6,500 should be included in the annual income but argued the $13,000 was an asset not income.   Based upon the undisputed testimony of the plaintiff that her calculation of value ($13,000) was based upon the number of shares vested and her own calculations as the difference between the strike price and current market value, as well as the plaintiff's statement that she intended to liquidate or cash those shares in the immediate future, the court finds such an amount can and should be treated as income.   In short the correct gross income for the plaintiff during calendar year 2010 should be $119,500 not $100,000.   After deducting the appropriate amounts for state, federal, social security and medicare taxes, the plaintiff's net weekly income was $1,593.   The defendant father's income was also different, albeit only slightly.   Here, defendant had failed to include a $7,500 bonus in his determination of his bonus.   His 2010 gross income should have been $382,500, yielding a weekly gross of $7,356, and ultimately a weekly net income of $4,436.

Combining these net income figures (and rounding to the nearest $10 as instructed on line 15 of the Support Guidelines Worksheet) yields a combined net weekly income of $6,030.

The court's understanding of how it must properly comply with Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–215b in situations where the combined net weekly income exceeds $4,000, is that the court must continue to follow the two basic principles set out in the Guidelines.   The first principle is that “the amount of support prescribed at the $4,000 level is presumed to be the minimum that should be ordered in such cases.”   Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines, (2005), Preamble, § (e)(6).   The other basic principle recognized in the Guidelines is that “spending on children declines as a proportion of family income as that income increases.”   Guidelines, Preamble at § (d).  So long as these principles are honored, trial “courts remain free to fashion appropriate child support awards on a case by case basis.”   Id., § 5(e)(6).   See also, Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 92–96 (2010).   In short, so long as the court remains above the “floor” of a basic child support obligation of $473, and below a “cap” of 11.83% of the combined net weekly income of the parents, the court is operating within and not departing from the Guidelines, albeit with some measure of discretion.   This is exactly what this court has done upon rearguement.

Using the combined net weekly income of the parents, determined to be $6,030, the basic child support obligation (line 16) must be between a floor of $473 per week and a cap of $713 a week.   Application of the Guidelines worksheet at these figures yields a low of $348 and a cap of $525 for the defendant's contribution and the percentages for his contribution range from 65% to 62% under the alternative scenarios.

The court having considered all the relevant factors in this case (such as the child's age, activities, living conditions and the parents' schedules and employment) and recognizing the need for consistency so that the parties can plan their financial affairs, determines the support obligation of the defendant should be $2,000 a month (approximately $462 a week) and that the percentage of responsibility for unreimbursed medical and child care expenses should be at the rate of 65% to defendant and 35% to the plaintiff.¹

In short while the court has corrected the Memorandum of Decision dated January 19, 2011 to accurately reflect the net weekly incomes of the parties, in all regards the court's Memorandum of Decision remains correct and the rulings and determinations therein remain in effect.

BY THE COURT

WENZEL, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. While the defendant asked the court to, in effect, articulate the grounds upon which it would determine a basic child support obligation beyond the maximum dollar figure shown in the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines (i.e., $473), at oral argument he admitted no authority currently requires such an expression.   He also agreed so long as the court's determination of the basic Child Support obligation was at least $473 a week and not more than 11.83% of the combined net weekly income, the award would be in compliance with Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010)..  FN1. While the defendant asked the court to, in effect, articulate the grounds upon which it would determine a basic child support obligation beyond the maximum dollar figure shown in the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines (i.e., $473), at oral argument he admitted no authority currently requires such an expression.   He also agreed so long as the court's determination of the basic Child Support obligation was at least $473 a week and not more than 11.83% of the combined net weekly income, the award would be in compliance with Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010).

Wenzel, William, J.