Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

GARY W. KRAVETZ v. DONNA H. KRAVETZ (AC 31177)
Bishop, Beach and West, Js. Argued November 9, 2010--officially released February 8, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Alvord, J. [dissolution judgment]; Hon. John R. Caruso, judge trial referee [motions for modification, attorney's fees and contempt].)

John F. Morris, for the appellant (defendant). Campbell D. Barrett, with whom were Jon T. Kukucka and, on the brief, C. Michael Budlong, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

BEACH, J. The defendant, Donna H. Kravetz, appeals from the postdissolution judgment of the trial court denying her motion for contempt and granting the motions of the plaintiff, Gary W. Kravetz, for modification of child support and for attorney's fees. The defendant claims that the court erred (1) in granting the plaintiff's motion for modification of child support, (2) in denying her motion for contempt and (3) in granting the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The parties, both physicians, were married in 1981. Four children were born of the marriage. Following the breakdown of the marriage, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking dissolution and other relief. On October 20, 2004, the court, Alvord, J., dissolved the marriage. It found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The court ordered joint legal custody and that the children's primary residence be with the defendant. As part of the orders issued at the time of dissolution, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant child support in the amount of $1200 per week for the four children. The court noted that ``[t]he presumptive child support amount is approximately $600 per week, and the court finds it appropriate and equitable to apply the deviation criteria to order an amount substantially in excess of the child support guidelines, on the basis of the coordination of total family support.'' The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay 60 percent of the children's college expenses, after exhaustion of certain accounts of which the children were the beneficial owners, and 50 percent of the children's ``extraordinary expenses.'' The parties filed various postjudgment motions. On August 5, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for contempt, alleging that the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order that he pay for certain expenses. On September 2, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for modification of the child support order on the ground that the oldest child, Emily, had graduated from high school and had attained the age of eighteen. The plaintiff also filed, on October 17, 2008, a motion for attorney's fees. On May 18, 2009, the court, Hon. John R. Caruso, judge trial referee, issued a memorandum of decision regarding the parties' postjudgment motions. The court denied the defendant's motion for contempt. The court granted in part the plaintiff's motion for modification of the child support order, agreeing that the support order should be reduced but not in the amount requested by the plaintiff. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's counsel $5000 within thirty days. This appeal followed.

I The defendant first claims that the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for modification of the child support order. We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we set forth our standard of review. ``An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's orders in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented. . . . 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.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cleary v. Cleary, 103 Conn. App. 798, 800, 930 A.2d 811 (2007). In his motion for modification, the plaintiff requested that the court reduce child support by $300 per week because Emily had reached the age of majority and had graduated from high school. The plaintiff also requested that the court order that as each child reaches the age of eighteen and graduates from high school that child support automatically be reduced by $300 per child. The court agreed that the plaintiff's child support should be reduced but disagreed with the amount suggested by the plaintiff. The court stated that because ``the trial court doubled the presumptive support of $600 to $1200 for the four children, the plaintiff has simply divided the $1200 by the number of children, i.e., four. The child support guidelines in effect . . . at the time of the dissolution set forth that child support for four children should be $600 and for three children it should be $541, a difference of $59. Therefore, the court reduces the child support by $209 (since the trial court doubled the presumptive amount), retroactive to the date the motion was filed. In the future the parties should reduce the child support in the same manner as each child is no longer statutorily eligible for support.'' It was proper for the court to issue a reduction in child support as a result of the oldest child having reached the age of eighteen and having completed high school. ``General Statutes

Download Kravetz v. Kravetz.pdf

Connecticut Law