Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed a dissolution judgment concerning child support, unreimbursed medical expenses, and distribution of marital property. The court held that the trial court was required to determine the presumptive child support amount before applying deviation criteria and to enter an enforceable order allocating unreimbursed medical expenses. It reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings on those issues, while rejecting the challenge concerning the Zodiac boat.

Holdings

1. Before applying deviation criteria or ordering that neither parent pay child support, the trial court must make an on-the-record finding of the presumptive child-support amount under the guidelines.
2. Shared physical custody, approximately equal parenting time, and the absence of a designated custodial parent do not eliminate the requirement to establish the presumptive child-support amount.
3. A trial court may not deviate from the presumptive support amount based on shared custody or extraordinary income disparity unless it first determines that the presumptive amount is inequitable or inappropriate and makes the required findings supporting the deviation.
4. The trial court was required to enter an order allocating responsibility for the children's medical and dental expenses not covered by insurance or otherwise reimbursed; a later conditional statement in an articulation was not an enforceable order.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by treating the Zodiac boat as a joint asset and ordering its sale and division because the evidence conflicted and the court reasonably credited the defendant's financial affidavits over the plaintiff's unsupported testimony.
6. A dissolution court need not expressly cite the governing property-distribution statutes or make an express finding on every statutory factor, so long as the record demonstrates that the court considered the required criteria and applied the law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly ordered that neither party pay child support without determining the presumptive guideline support amount.
2. Whether the trial court could deviate from the child-support guidelines based on shared physical custody and disparity in parental incomes without first finding that the presumptive amount was inequitable or inappropriate.
3. Whether the trial court was required to enter an order allocating responsibility for the children's unreimbursed medical expenses.
4. Whether the trial court improperly ordered the sale and division of the Zodiac boat as a joint asset.
5. Whether the trial court failed to consider the statutory criteria governing distribution of the marital estate.
6. Whether the evidentiary record supported the trial court's treatment of the parties' settlement proceeds, contributions to the marital home, and refinancing or sale order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded