Y. H. v. J. B.

313 A.3d 1245

224 Conn.App. 793

Y. H.

v.J. B.^*

(AC 45857)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued December 5, 2023

Officially Released April 16, 2024

J. B., self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

Bright, C. J., and Cradle and Schuman, Js.

BRIGHT, C. J.

[1–7] ₇₉₅The self-represented defendant, J. B., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Y. H., and entering certain financial orders.¹ On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion (1) in declining to award him alimony and child support, (2) in its orders regarding the division of marital property, specifically, the marital home and the parties’ business, and (3) in granting the plaintiff’s motions for contempt and ordering him to pay $40,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.² ₇₉₆Because we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award child support on the ground that it was not requested, and without considering and applying the child support guidelines, we reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to all the financial orders and remand this case for a new trial on all financial issues. We further conclude that the court’s award of attorney’s fees, to the extent it was imposed as a sanction for the defendant’s contempt, constituted an abuse of its discretion, which entitles the defendant to a new hearing as to the appropriate sanction for his wilful violation of the court’s orders. Finally, to the extent that the award of attorney’s fees was made pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-62 (a), this case must also be remanded for reconsideration in light of the new financial orders that will be issued on remand.³

The following facts, as found by the trial court, Moukawsher, J.,⁴ and procedural history are relevant to our consideration of the issues raised on appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant were married on September 10, 2010. The parties’ son was born in January 2008. On January 13, 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action for dissolution of marriage, alleging that the parties’ marriage had broken down irretrievably. On June ₇₉₇2, 2020, the defendant filed an amended answer and cross complaint. On September 8, 2022, following a trial, the court dissolved the parties’ marriage. In its memorandum of decision, the court granted the parties joint legal custody of their son with the defendant having primary physical custody. The court stated, in part, that "[n]either party has asked for alimony or child support, so the court will order none." In dividing the parties’ marital property, the court awarded the parties’ business, a small religious gift shop that it valued at $100,000, to the plaintiff. The court awarded the parties’ residence to the defendant; it found that the value of the residence was $435,000 and that the equity therein was $259,000. The court further ordered the residence to be sold after the parties’ minor son graduated from high school or turned nineteen years old. To prevent the defendant from encumbering the residence, the court ordered that the residence remain in both parties’ names and that the defendant bear all expenses related to it. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to 100 percent of the business’ value and that the defendant was entitled to 65 percent of the residence’s value; accordingly, it ordered that the defendant pay to the plaintiff $90,650 or 35 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the residence, whichever was greater.

The court also granted the plaintiff’s three motions for contempt based on its conclusion that the defendant wilfully had disobeyed court orders regarding the finances of the business. As a result of the contempt, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $40,000 in attorney’s fees. The court, however, also stated that it was awarding such attorney’s fees "under … § 46b-62." Finally, the court stated that "[t]he remaining pending motions in the case have been considered in the court’s orders. They are denied as moot. Any remaining financial claims raised by the parties at ₇₉₈trial have been taken into account in the court’s equitable deliberations over the property division." This appeal followed.⁵

[8–11] We begin by setting forth the well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases. "[T]his court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts. … As has often been explained, the foundation for this standard is that the trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the personal factors significant to a domestic relations case …. In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action. … Notwithstanding the great deference accorded the trial court in dissolution proceedings, a trial court’s ruling … may be reversed if, in the exercise of its discretion, the trial court applies the wrong standard of law. … The question of whether, and to what extent, the child support guidelines apply, however, is a question of law over which this court should exercise plenary review." ₇₉₉(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Renstrup v. Renstrup, 217 Conn. App. 252, 259, 287 A.3d 1095, cert. denied, 346 Conn. 915, 290 A.3d 374 (2023).

I

The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly declined to award child support on the ground that it was not requested by either party. Because a review of the trial court file reveals that the defendant consistently had requested child support, we agree with the defendant. We further conclude that, even if not requested, the trial court improperly declined to award child support without considering the applicable statutes and child support guidelines.

[12] The following additional facts are necessary for the resolution of this claim. On May 27, 2022, the trial court issued a trial management order indicating that trial would begin on August 2, 2022. This order required that, not later than five days before the trial date, the parties were to exchange with each other and file, inter alia, fully completed child support guidelines worksheets as required by Practice Book § 25-30 (e), if applicable, and written proposed orders in accordance with Practice Book § 25-30 (c) and (d). On August 1, 2022, both parties filed completed child support guidelines worksheets, in accordance with the trial management order. On his worksheet, the defendant calculated the plaintiff’s presumptive current support obligation as $274 per week and the total arrearage owed to him as $26,121. Also on August 1, 2022, the plaintiff filed a corrected notice of compliance with the trial management order in which she requested that neither party pay child support to the other party⁶ and the defendant filed his notice of compliance, which stated in part: "For minor teenager son support, the defendant is providing the ₈₀₀child support guidelines worksheet as requested in the orders and to be considered for risk mitigations to the minor teenager son support."

The trial in this matter commenced on August 2, 2022.⁷ On August 3, 2022, the court issued a trial management order indicating that the trial would resume on August 18, 2022. On August 12, 2022, the defendant filed another notice of compliance with the trial management orders with proposed orders "for the trial scheduled for August 18, 2022 …. " In this filing, the defendant provided the same statement regarding child support as in his previous filings but, in addition, he specifically requested that the court order "the plaintiff to pay the defendant for child support and arrearage." The trial resumed on August 18, 2022, with no mention of the defendant’s August 12, 2022 filing.

The court issued its memorandum of decision on September 8, 2022, indicating that child support had not been requested. On September 16, 2022, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration in which he, inter alia, pointed out that he had requested child support in his August 12, 2022 notice of compliance with the trial management orders. The court denied this motion on September 20, 2022, and the defendant filed this appeal on September 28, 2022.⁸ Contrary to the ₈₀₁court’s statement in its memorandum of decision, the record reveals that the defendant consistently requested child support before, during, and after the dissolution trial.

[13] More importantly, even if not requested, the court improperly declined to award child support without first consider- ing the applicable statutes and child support guidelines. In considering this issue, we begin with a review of the statutory scheme regarding child support and the guidelines. General Statutes § 46b-84 provides in relevant part: "(a) Upon or subsequent to the … dissolution of any marriage … the parents of a minor child of the marriage, shall maintain the child according to their respective abilities, if the child is in need of maintenance. Any post judgment procedure afforded by chapter 906 shall be available to secure the present and future financial interests of a party in connection with a final order for the periodic payment of child support. …

"(d) In determining whether a child is in need of maintenance and, if in need, the respective abilities of the parents to provide such maintenance and the amount thereof, the court shall consider the age, health, station, occupation, earning capacity, amount and sources of income, estate, vocational skills and employability of each of the parents, and the age, health, station, occupation, educational status and expectation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of the child. …"

General Statutes § 46b-215a provides for a commission "to issue child support and arrearage guidelines ₈₀₂to ensure the appropriateness of criteria for the establishment of child support...