Samuel V. Schoonmaker, IV of the The Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC provides an informative update of family law cases in the State of Connecticut through his "Appellate Preview." Here is a recent submission by Attorney Schoonmaker:

The following decisions will be officially released on September 9, 2008:

Gosselin v. Gosselin, __ Conn.App __. Affirmed.
(1) The trial court properly found a substantial change of circumstances based on an increase in value of the alimony recipient's assets, even though the post judgment motion to modify only alleged a substantial change in income. The recipient had ample notice that assets would be considered, as both parties addressed assets at depositions and introduced evidence regarding assets at the modification hearing. The recipient waived any irregularity in the pleading by not objecting to introduction of asset evidence at the hearing.

(2) The Appellate Court would not review a calculation error that had not been raised with the trial court. The trial court had compared the value of the alimony recipient's assets immediately before the dissolution with her assets at the time of the modification. It should have compared assets awarded at dissolution with assets at the time of modification. However, the Court would not apply plain error review.

Dissent: The trial court based its decision on the wrong asset values and therefore did not apply C.G.S. §46b-86 correctly. Judge Bishop reasoned that the parties had an opportunity to address the issue in their supplemental briefs, and that the Appellate Court should not have avoided the issue.

Note: Alimony modification hearings rarely are bifurcated between (1) whether there is a substantial change of circumstances under §46b-86 and (2) application of §46b-82 criteria, which require consideration of assets. It is unclear what objection the alimony recipient should have asserted short of seeking bifurcation.

Tip: Modification of alimony has become less income based in recent years.

Signore v. Signore, __ Conn. App. __. Affirmed.
(1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a post judgment motion for modification of alimony because there was no substantial change of circumstances. Even assuming that numerous business loans actually required repayment and were not income, as argued by the obligor, his gross annual income was $71,569. The parties' separation agreement permitted downward modification if his income fell below $70,000.

(2) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the law of the case doctrine to findings made at a prior modification hearing. A different judge had included in its calculation of gross income the health insurance premiums, automobile insurance premiums and automobile expenses that were paid by the obligor's business. Including those expenses elevated the obligor's gross income above $70,000.