Baker v. Argueta

209 Conn.App. 843

268 A.3d 1198

Serena BAKER

v.Oscar ARGUETA

AC 43827

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 30, 2021

Officially released January 11, 2022

David N. Rubin, for the appellant (defendant).

Joseph T. O'Connor, Stamford, CT, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Prescott, Moll and DiPentima, Js.

MOLL, J.

The defendant, Oscar Argueta, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered on January 8, 2020, dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Serena Baker. On appeal, the defendant raises claims of error relating to the child support award entered by the court in its January 8, 2020 memorandum of decision. We conclude that the defendant's claims became moot during the pendency of this appeal when the court issued a corrected memorandum of decision on May 22, 2020, which the defendant has not challenged by way of an amended appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

The following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The parties were married in 2009. Two children were born of the marriage, one in 2014 and the other in 2016.

On September 17, 2018, the plaintiff commenced the present dissolution action. The matter was tried to the court, McLaughlin, J. , on December 17 and 18, 2019.

On January 8, 2020, the court issued a memorandum of decision rendering a dissolution judgment (original decision). In accordance with a pendente lite parenting plan that it incorporated into the original decision,¹ the court awarded the parties joint legal custody of their children, with the children's primary residence being with the plaintiff. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay child support to the plaintiff. In calculating the defendant's child support obligation, the court indicated that both parties had submitted child support guidelines worksheets pursuant to Practice Book § 25-30 (e).² The court referenced two worksheets that were appended to the original decision as Addendum A and Addendum B, respectively. Addendum A, identified by the court as the "[p]laintiff's worksheet" dated December 17, 2019, calculated the defendant's presumptive child support obligation under the child support guidelines, as set forth in § 46b-215a-1 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, to be $275 per week. Addendum B, identified by the court as the "[d]efendant's worksheet" dated December 5, 2019, calculated the presumptive support amount to be $294 per week. The court found the presumptive support amount to be $294 per week as set forth in Addendum B, and, after determining that a deviation was warranted because the presumptive support amount was inequitable or inappropriate on the basis of two deviation criteria under § 46b-215a-5c (b) of the regulations (coordination of total family support and the best interests of the parties’ minor children), the court ordered the defendant to pay $338 per week, or $1465 per month, in child support. On January 21, 2020, the defendant filed this appeal from the original decision.

On March 10, 2020, the defendant filed a motion for articulation requesting that the court articulate several aspects of the original decision. Of import, the defendant asked the court to articulate the following: (1) whether the court mistakenly had referred to the child support guidelines worksheet appended to the original decision as Addendum A as the "[p]laintiff's worksheet" notwithstanding that the defendant had completed it; (2) whether the court mistakenly had relied on the worksheet appended to the original decision as Addendum B, which also had been completed by the defendant, to find that the defendant's presumptive child support obligation was $294 per week when Addendum B had been superseded by Addendum A; and (3) whether the correct presumptive support amount was $275 per week, as reflected in Addendum A. On May 22, 2020, the court issued, sua sponte, a corrected memorandum of decision (corrected decision), the purpose of which was to "[correct] the court's child support orders in [the original decision] to comport with the proper child support guidelines worksheet." In the portion of the corrected decision addressing child support, the court stated that "the defendant ... submit[ted] a child support guidelines worksheet at the commencement of the trial pursuant to Practice Book § 25-30 (e) ; the plaintiff did not.³ Pursuant to the defendant's worksheet dated December 17, 2019 [i.e., Addendum A], the weekly presumptive child support amount is $275 ... paid from the defendant to the plaintiff." (Footnote added.) After making a finding that the presumptive support amount was $275 per week, the court deviated from that amount and ordered the defendant to pay $313 per week, or $1356 per month, in child support.⁴ The corrected decision otherwise mirrored the original decision. The defendant did not file an amended appeal from the corrected decision. On June 23, 2020, the court summarily denied the defendant's motion for articulation.⁵ Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

Before proceeding with our analysis, we briefly explain what we distill to be the defendant's claims on appeal. In the argument section of his principal appellate brief, the sole discernable claim raised by the defendant is that (1) in the original decision, the court improperly found that his presumptive child support obligation was $294 per week, and (2) notwithstanding that the court, in recognition of its error, issued the corrected decision in which it reduced his child support obligation upon a finding that the presumptive support amount was $275 per week, the original decision must be reversed and the matter must be remanded for a new trial. In the conclusion section of that brief, without any supporting analysis, the defendant asks us to "approve ... the following conclusions:" (1) the court improperly found that the presumptive support amount was $294 per week; (2) the court improperly "failed to determine the presumptive support amounts, child support award, child care costs, health care coverage, health care expenses, worksheet, child support award components, health care coverage contribution, payment of unreimbursed expenses, the presumptive order for unreimbursed expenses, the child care contribution and the noncustodial parent's share of qualifying costs for a contribution from the noncustodial parent only for child care costs for the two minor children of the parties"; (3) the court improperly determined that deviating from the presumptive support amount was warranted on the basis of two deviation criteria when it failed to make factual findings supporting the deviation and when there was no evidence to support the deviation; (4) the court improperly ordered a deviation from the presumptive support amount notwithstanding that the plaintiff did not indicate that a deviation was warranted on a child support guidelines worksheet completed by her dated December 10, 2019; and (5) the court made an improper factual finding regarding rental income received by the defendant from a certain commercial property.⁶ During oral argument before this court, the defendant's counsel clarified that the defendant's claims of error all related to the proper calculation of the defendant's child support obligation.

On the basis of his principal appellate brief and his counsel's statements during oral argument before this court, we conclude that the crux of the defendant's appeal is that, in the original decision, the court incorrectly found that the defendant's presumptive child support obligation was $294 per week and that, as a result of the court's error, a new trial is necessary. The "conclusions" that the defendant requests that we "approve" all share a nexus to the court's finding of the presumptive support amount in the original decision.

In her appellate brief, the plaintiff argues, inter alia, that the defendant's claims are moot because there is no practical relief that we can afford him following the issuance of the corrected decision, which the defendant has not challenged by way of an amended appeal. We agree.

"We begin with the well-settled general rule that the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction .... When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot. ... Mootness implicates this court's subject matter jurisdiction, raising a question of law over which we exercise plenary review." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) RAL Management, Inc. v. Valley View Associates , 278 Conn. 672, 679–80, 899 A.2d 586 (2006)."

"Under our well established jurisprudence, [m]ootness presents a circumstance wherein the issue before the court has been resolved or had lost its significance because of a change in the condition of affairs between the parties. ... In determining mootness, the dispositive question is whether a successful appeal would benefit the plaintiff or defendant in any way. ... In other words, the ultimate question is whether the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant. ...

"In considering the effect of the opening of a judgment on a pending appeal, then, the appropriate question is whether the change to the judgment has affected the issue on appeal. If, in opening the judgment, the trial court reverses itself and resolves the matter at issue on appeal in the appellant's favor, it is clear that the appeal is moot as there is no further practical relief that may be afforded. ... Conversely, if the judgment is opened to address issues entirely unrelated to the appeal, the opening of the judgment has...