KATHERINE B. PEIXOTO
MARK M. PEIXOTO
May 24, 2018
for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Hon. Stanley
Novack, judge trial referee; judgment dissolving the
marriage and granting certain other relief; thereafter, the
court, Colin, J., granted the plaintiff's motion
for modification of alimony and child support, and the
defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Barbara M. Schellenberg, with whom, on the brief, was Rachel
A. Pencu, for the appellant (defendant).
Katherine B. Peixoto, the appellee (plaintiff), filed a
DiPentima, C. J., and Elgo and Pellegrino, Js.
defendant, Mark M. Peixoto, appeals from the judgment of the
trial court granting the postjudgment motion for modification
of alimony filed by the plaintiff, Katherine B.
Peixoto. On appeal, the defendant claims that the
court erred in granting the modification of alimony after it
‘‘improperly construed the legal standards set
forth by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Dan v.
Dan, [315 Conn. 1');">315 Conn. 1, 105 A.3d 118 (2014)].'' We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
following procedural history, along with the facts as found
by the trial court, Colin, J., inform our review.
‘‘The marriage of the parties was dissolved on
December 2, 2014. At that time, the parties had been married
for nearly nine years. They have two minor children (now ages
eleven and nine), who reside primarily with the
plaintiff-mother in a two-family home in Westport . . . .
Although the defendant resided in New Jersey at the time of
the dissolution of marriage action, he did not file an
appearance in the proceedings; thus, the matter proceeded as
an unopposed hearing before the court . . . on December 2,
2014. A financial affidavit for the defendant was not filed
at that time. The court entered certain financial orders.
defendant was ordered to pay (1) child support in accordance
with the child support guidelines in the amount of $320 per
week; (2) $240 per week for childcare expenses . . . which
represented one half of the childcare expenses at that time;
and (3) periodic alimony in the amount of $500 per month
until the death of either party, the remarriage of the
plaintiff, or December 31, 2019, whichever first occurs.
plaintiff now seeks an increase in these financial orders and
alleges in her motion that ‘[a] substantial change of
circumstances has arisen since the entry of the orders of the
court on December 2, 2014, in that the defendant's income
has significantly increased.' She now seeks (1) child
support of $471 per week in accordance with the current child
support guidelines; (2) 55 [percent] of the cost of childcare
expense . . . and (3) $1500 per month in alimony. The
plaintiff also seeks to have these increased orders become
effective retroactively to the date of filing of her
court also found: ‘‘The current child support
guidelines provide for a presumptive child support award of
$471 per week from [the defendant to the plaintiff] and a
division of unreimbursed medical expenses and childcare
contributions as follows: 55 [percent] to be paid by [the
defendant] and 45 [percent] to be paid by [the plaintiff].
This is based on the following net weekly incomes: $1350 for
[the plaintiff] and $2683 by [the defendant].
[defendant's] net weekly income at the time of the
divorce in December, 2014, was reported to be $1669. However,
that understated the defendant's actual income. The child
support guidelines worksheet submitted to the dissolution
court was based on the defendant having a gross annual income
of $125, 000 per year. The defendant's actual base salary
at that time was $150, 000 per year. This is the same base
annual salary that the defendant now earns from his current
defendant's gross annual income in 2016 was $201, 465.
The dissolution court in 2014 assumed a gross annual income
of $125, 000. Thus, the plaintiff has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's income
has substantially increased since the date of the dissolution