Schwarz v. Schwarz
5 A.3d 548, 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 450, 124 Conn. App. 472 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When presented with competing motions to modify alimony, a trial court that finds grounds to reduce alimony due to the recipient's cohabitation may nevertheless increase the award if it also finds a substantial change in the payor's financial circumstances sufficient to warrant an increase after considering all statutory factors.
Facts:
- Majella W. Schwarz and Alan L. Schwarz's 29-year marriage was dissolved on February 23, 2005.
- Their separation agreement required Alan to pay Majella $2000 per week in alimony, which was modifiable if Majella cohabited with another person per Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-86(b).
- At the time of the dissolution, Alan's gross annual income was $373,620.
- In 2006, Majella began living permanently with Arthur 'Tex' Kane, who paid for their entertainment and dining expenses but did not contribute to household bills.
- By 2009, Alan's gross annual income had increased to $450,000, and he had remarried, which reduced his personal living expenses.
- Majella, who suffered from serious chronic health conditions including leukemia, faced an anticipated annual health insurance cost of $15,000 after her prior coverage expired.
Procedural Posture:
- Alan L. Schwarz filed a postjudgment motion in the trial court to modify or terminate alimony, alleging Majella W. Schwarz was cohabiting with another person.
- Majella W. Schwarz subsequently filed a cross-motion in the same court to increase alimony, alleging a substantial change in both parties' financial circumstances.
- The trial court conducted a hearing on both motions.
- The trial court granted both motions, ultimately ordering an increase in Alan's alimony obligation from $2000 to $2175 per week.
- Alan L. Schwarz (defendant-appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut, where Majella W. Schwarz was the plaintiff-appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by increasing an alimony award based on the payor's substantial change in financial circumstances, after also finding that the recipient's cohabitation with another person altered her financial needs, which would otherwise justify a reduction or termination of alimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Beach, J.
No. The court did not abuse its discretion by increasing the alimony award. Once a court finds a threshold basis for modification under either § 46b-86(a) for a substantial change in circumstances or § 46b-86(b) for cohabitation, it is not bound to a specific outcome like reduction or termination. Instead, the court must conduct a new, broad inquiry into the parties' current financial situations, applying the same statutory criteria used for an initial alimony award under § 46b-82. In this case, the defendant's 20% increase in gross income constituted a substantial change in circumstances. This allowed the court to re-evaluate all factors, including the plaintiff's increased need for health insurance and the financial effects of her cohabitation, and fashion a new award that equitably balanced these competing considerations, resulting in a modest increase.
Dissenting - Flynn, J.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion. The majority's holding renders § 46b-86(b) effectively meaningless. That statute was specifically enacted to remedy the injustice of a person paying alimony to an ex-spouse who is being supported by a new partner through cohabitation. By granting the defendant's motion under § 46b-86(b), the court found that the plaintiff's cohabitation altered her financial needs and was obligated to reduce or terminate alimony. To simultaneously grant the plaintiff's motion and increase the award is inherently inconsistent and vitiates the clear legislative purpose of the cohabitation statute, creating an unjust result for the payor spouse.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that competing statutory grounds for alimony modification are not mutually exclusive. It establishes that a finding of cohabitation under § 46b-86(b), which points toward a reduction, does not create an irrebuttable presumption or mandate a particular outcome. Instead, such a finding merely opens the door for the court to conduct a holistic de novo review of the parties' finances under the § 46b-82 factors. This gives trial courts significant discretion to weigh all circumstances, such as a payor's increased income, against the financial impact of cohabitation, potentially leading to counterintuitive results like an alimony increase.
Unlock the full brief for Schwarz v. Schwarz