Buehler v. Buehler

211 Conn.App. 357

272 A.3d 736

Richard BUEHLER

v.Lilach BUEHLER

AC 44080

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued December 6, 2021

Officially released March 22, 2022

Jon T. Kukucka, Hartford, with whom were Nicole M. Riel, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, Johanna S. Katz, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Lilach Buehler, self-represented, the appellee (defendant).

Bright, C. J., and Prescott and Clark, Js.

CLARK, J.

This appeal arises out of the trial court's judgment issuing a postsecondary educational support order (support order) pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 46b-56c¹ in favor of the defendant, Lilach Buehler, and against the plaintiff, Richard Buehler. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) misconstrued and misapplied § 46b-56c (d) when it entered the support order, (2) improperly predicated the support order on factual findings made by the dissolution court with respect to the breakdown of the parties’ marriage, (3) improperly considered the nature of the plaintiff's relationship with the parties’ eldest daughter, Hannah, and (4) erroneously found that the defendant attempted to include him in Hannah's college selection process. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following procedural history provides context for the present appeal. The marriage of the parties was dissolved by order of the trial court, Gordon, J. (dissolution court), on June 4, 2008. At that time, the dissolution court reserved jurisdiction regarding orders for the postsecondary education of the parties’ three minor children pursuant to § 46b-56c. The postdissolution relationship between the parties has been litigious.²

In April, 2016, Hannah, then a junior in high school, began the process of choosing a college to attend. The defendant informed the plaintiff by e-mail³ that, during spring break, she and their children were going to visit maternal relatives in North Carolina and that they would visit some colleges along the way. The plaintiff responded by asking for a list of colleges Hannah planned to visit and stated that he might join the trip if he were provided with adequate information in a timely manner. The defendant declined to provide the plaintiff with the list of colleges and suggested that the plaintiff contact Hannah directly to arrange his own college tours with her. In its memorandum of decision, the trial court, Sommer, J. , found that, "[g]iven the acrimonious character of the parties’ relationship, it was not remotely realistic for the plaintiff to accompany them on these early visits ...."

In October, 2016, the defendant informed the plaintiff that Hannah had sent her SAT scores to the colleges and universities she was considering. The defendant also requested that the plaintiff complete financial aid applications required for Hannah to receive financial assistance. The plaintiff did not respond to those requests. He also did not discuss with Hannah her academic interests and career aspirations or offer to take her to visit colleges.

In the fall of 2017, Hannah matriculated at Quinnipiac University, majoring in health sciences. Hannah received an academic scholarship, and the defendant and Hannah paid the balance of her tuition and associated fees with their assets and loans. On October 17, 2017, the defendant filed a motion for order re: postsecondary educational support, postjudgment (motion).

Judge Sommer held a hearing on the defendant's motion on April 17 and September 14, 2018. At the hearing, the plaintiff objected to the motion, arguing that the defendant had excluded him from Hannah's college selection process and therefore had failed to satisfy the requirements of § 46b-56c (d), which provides in relevant part that, "[a]t the appropriate time, both parents shall participate in, and agree upon, the decision as to which institution of higher education or private occupational school the child will attend. ..." General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 46b-56c (d).

The court issued a memorandum of decision on February 8, 2019. In its decision, the court noted that, at the time of dissolution, the dissolution court had found that " ‘[t]here is no doubt given the premium placed on education and the talents of these parents—and the pride in which they both spoke of their children's educational accomplishments’ " that the parents would have provided support to their children for higher education if the family were intact. The dissolution court, therefore, reserved jurisdiction regarding an educational support order pursuant to § 46b-56c. Judge Sommer thus concluded that the "conditions precedent for an educational support order to enter pursuant to ... § 46b-56c (c)" had been met. See footnote 1 of this opinion.

The court understood the defendant to be seeking an order to establish the percentage of responsibility each of the parties had for Hannah's postsecondary education expenses, including room, board, tuition, books, fees, registration, and application costs. The defendant was not seeking reimbursement for the expenses she already had incurred and had paid at the time the motion was filed. She sought contribution only for expenses incurred for Hannah's future college expenses.

In issuing its order, the court considered the criteria identified in § 46b-56c (c): (1) the parents’ income, assets, and other obligations, including obligations to other dependents; (2) the child's need for support to attend an institution of higher education considering the child's assets and ability to earn income; (3) the availability of financial aid from other sources, including grants and loans; (4) the reasonableness of the higher education to be funded considering the child's academic record and the financial resources available; (5) the child's preparation and aptitude for and commitment to higher education; and (6) evidence, if any, of the educational institution the child would attend.

With respect to Hannah's college selection process, the court found that, when Hannah was in high school, she expressed an interest in pursuing a career in the health sciences and that her guidance counselor helped her identify institutions that offered that course of study. One of the institutions identified was Quinnipiac University, which accepted Hannah as a student and offered her an academic scholarship. The court also found that Hannah diligently had prepared for college and that she had the academic aptitude for success at Quinnipiac University. At the time of the hearing, Hannah successfully had progressed to her sophomore year with a goal of becoming a physician's assistant and had qualified for a partial academic scholarship. As a result, the court found that Hannah met the statutory criteria of § 46b-56c (e). See footnote 1 of this opinion.

The court also found that Hannah needed financial assistance to attend Quinnipiac University. The defendant had paid a portion of Hannah's tuition and assisted Hannah by cosigning a loan from Sallie Mae⁴ and obtaining federal financial assistance. On the basis of the parties’ financial affidavits and testimony, the court calculated the parties’ respective net weekly incomes and expenses and found that both parties had the financial ability to contribute to the cost of Hannah's education at Quinnipiac University. The plaintiff's ability, however, was greater than the defendant's.⁵

The plaintiff objected to the defendant's motion, alleging that the defendant had excluded him from the college application process. He argued that the requirement in § 46b-56c (d) that "both parents shall participate in, and agree upon, the decision as to which institution of higher education ... the child will attend"; General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 46b-56c (d); is a condition precedent to a parent's obligation to contribute to the cost of a child's postsecondary education. He contended that because he did not participate in or agree to Hannah's decision to attend Quinnipiac University, he could not be ordered to contribute to the cost of her attending that institution. He testified at the hearing that he was left out of the process when Hannah was deciding which college to attend and that, in his view, the University of Connecticut would have been a better college for her. The court found that the plaintiff made that claim without any knowledge of the academic program Hannah had selected. Although the plaintiff acknowledged that the defendant had informed him that Hannah was applying to college, he did not make any attempt to determine Hannah's interests and reasons for applying to Quinnipiac University.

The court found that the parties have not communicated effectively since the time of dissolution. The court reviewed the Our Family Wizard records entered into evidence and placed responsibility for the problem primarily on the plaintiff. The e-mail communications by the defendant established that she had sought the plaintiff's participation in the application process. In April, 2016, during Hannah's junior year in high school, the defendant informed the plaintiff that she was taking their children to visit maternal relatives in North Carolina and that they would visit some colleges along the way.⁶ According to the court, "rather than focus on Hannah's interests and academic goals that were a key part of her [selection] process or offer to take [Hannah] on ... college visits, the plaintiff berated the defendant, accusing her in the April 9, 2016 e-mail of deliberately excluding him." The court found that there was ample time after April, 2016, for the plaintiff to have become involved in the college selection process, if he had made the effort to establish a positive relationship with Hannah. In an e-mail dated November 11, 2016, the plaintiff told the defendant that he would discuss Hannah's college applications during his parenting time, but it does not appear that he ever had such a discussion.⁷ The court found no evidence that the plaintiff ever offered to take Hannah to visit...