Summary
This Connecticut Appellate Court decision addresses a father's appeal from a trial court's remedial order requiring him to reimburse his ex-wife for 96 percent of their daughter's unreimbursed medical and dental expenses incurred after she reached the age of majority. The appellate court found that the parties' separation agreement was ambiguous regarding postmajority healthcare obligations and reversed the trial court's judgment, remanding the case for factual determinations on the parties' intent. The court also addressed issues related to postjudgment modification and contempt proceedings concerning shared parental responsibilities.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties' separation agreement unambiguously required them to pay their daughter's unreimbursed medical and dental expenses after she reached the age of majority.
- Whether the trial court properly entered a remedial order requiring the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant for 96 percent of the daughter's postmajority medical and dental expenses.
Holdings
- The separation agreement is ambiguous because both the plaintiff's interpretation—that the obligation to pay unreimbursed medical and dental expenses ended at majority—and the defendant's interpretation—that the obligation continued through the period of required health-insurance coverage—are reasonable.
- The trial court erred by construing the separation agreement unambiguously to require the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant for K.'s postmajority medical and dental expenses.
Key quotations
“Because both parties have set forth reasonable interpretations of the separation agreement that is grounded in the language used in that agreement, we conclude that the agreement is ambiguous.” (234 Conn. App. at 23-24)
“We further conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in construing the separation agreement unambiguously to require the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant for K’s postmajority medical and dental expenses.” (234 Conn. App. at 24)
“Because the agreement is ambiguous with respect to that issue, the proper interpretation of the agreement is a question of fact that must be resolved by the trial court.” (234 Conn. App. at 24)
Factual background
The parties' 2011 separation agreement, incorporated into their dissolution judgment, required them to share certain expenses for their children, including unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, but did not expressly state when that obligation terminated. The agreement separately provided that health-insurance coverage would continue until a child reached nineteen, or twenty-three if attending college. After the parties' daughter K. reached the age of majority, the trial court construed the agreement and a later order as requiring the plaintiff to pay 96 percent of her unreimbursed medical and dental expenses through age twenty-three.
Procedural history
The parties' marriage was dissolved by the Superior Court in 2011, with their separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution judgment. After several subsequent orders reallocating the parties' responsibility for unreimbursed medical expenses, the trial court entered a 2022 order requiring the plaintiff to pay 96 percent of those expenses. The trial court later denied the defendant's contempt motion but entered a remedial order requiring reimbursement for expenses incurred through the children's age of twenty-three, and later corrected that order. The plaintiff appealed, and the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the remedial and corrected orders in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The trial court must determine the parties' intent concerning whether the separation agreement requires payment of K.'s postmajority unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, after considering any extrinsic evidence presented by the parties. The judgment was reversed as to the remedial order and corrected order and affirmed in all other respects.