Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cyganovich v. Cyganovich

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

April 9, 2019

KATE B. CYGANOVICH
v.
THOMAS J. CYGANOVICH

          Argued January 8, 2019

         Procedural History

         Action 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, Heller, J., granted the defendant's motion for modification of child support and denied the plaintiff's motion for contempt, and the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

          Thomas J. Cyganovich, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

          Kate B. Cyganovich, self-represented, the appellee (plaintiff).

          Alvord, Sheldon and Eveleigh, Js.

          OPINION

          ALVORD, J.

         In this postdissolution matter, the defendant, Thomas J. Cyganovich, appeals from the judgment of the trial court resolving several of the parties' post-judgment motions. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly calculated his modified child support obligation.[1] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. The defendant married the plaintiff, Kate B. Cyganovich, on December 30, 2008. During the marriage, the parties had one child together. On June 13, 2016, the plaintiff filed the underlying complaint for dissolution of marriage. On June 30, 2016, [2] the court rendered judgment dissolving the parties' marriage.

         The judgment of dissolution incorporated by reference the terms of a separation agreement, which was dated June 22, 2016, and had been filed with the court on June 23, 2016. Under the terms of the separation agreement, the defendant was obligated to pay to the plaintiff $1291 per month, or $298 per week, in child support. In addition, the separation agreement provided for a shared custody arrangement with respect to the parties' child.[3]

         In September, 2017, pursuant to the terms of the separation agreement, [4] the plaintiff informed the defendant that her income had increased. At the time the dissolution judgment was rendered, the plaintiff's net weekly income had been $674. Because she had changed employment, the plaintiff's net weekly income had increased to $1000.

         On September 14, 2017, the defendant filed a motion for modification, postjudgment, in which he sought a reduction in the amount of child support that he is obligated to pay, due to a substantial change in the financial circumstances of the parties. On September 27, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for modification, postjudgment, to modify the terms of the dissolution judgment with respect to the allocation of the health insurance premiums paid by the parties for their minor child.

         Prior to the parties' hearing on the postjudgment motions, a family relations officer prepared a child support guidelines worksheet for the parties. According to the worksheet, the family relations officer concluded that the presumptive child support obligation was $424 per week, of which the plaintiff's share was 37 percent, or $157 per week, and the defendant's share was 63 percent, or $267 per week. In addition, on the first page of the worksheet, the family relations officer provided a handwritten notation: ‘‘Split custody $110.''

         On November 6, 2017, the trial court, Heller, J., held a hearing on the parties' postjudgment motions. In addition to arguing that the child support order should be modified due to a substantial change in the parties' financial circumstances, the defendant urged the court to deviate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.