LORI K. WINTHROP
v.
MATTHEW WINTHROP
Argued
January 16, 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, Malone,
J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and granting
certain other relief in accordance with the parties'
separation agreement; thereafter, the court,
Tindill, J., denied the plaintiff's
motion for contempt, and the defendant appealed to this
court; subsequently, the court, Tindill,
J., denied the plaintiff's motion for
clarification and the defendant's motion for reargument;
thereafter, the plaintiff cross appealed to this court;
subsequently, the court, Tindill, J.,
denied the plaintiff's motion for articulation;
thereafter, this court consolidated the appeals. Reversed
in part; judgment directed.
Matthew Winthrop, self-represented, the appellant-appellee
(defendant).
Barbara M. Schellenberg, for the appellee-appellant
(plaintiff).
DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Elgo, Js.
OPINION
DIPENTIMA, C. J.
The
defendant, Matthew Winthrop, appeals, and the plaintiff, Lori
K. Winthrop, cross appeals, from the order of the trial court
denying the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for contempt.
The defendant claims that the trial court improperly found
that his ‘‘earned income, '' for the
purpose of calculating the amount of additional alimony that
he owed the plaintiff in 2016, was the amount shown on his
W-2 form. The plaintiff contends in her cross appeal that,
although the court correctly determined that the
defendant's earned income was the figure provided on his
W-2 form, it failed to calculate the additional alimony owed
in 2016 in accordance with the parties' separation
agreement (agreement). We affirm the judgment as to the
defendant's appeal and, as to the plaintiff's cross
appeal, we reverse the judgment only with respect to the
court's calculation of the alimony amount owed by the
defendant in 2016.
The
following undisputed facts and procedural history are
relevant for the purposes of this appeal and cross appeal.
The parties were married on November 27, 1996, and their
marriage was dissolved on February 9, 2012. The judgment of
dissolution incorporated the parties' agreement, which
provides, in relevant part, that the defendant is to pay the
plaintiff unallocated alimony until September 11, 2019, or
until the plaintiff's death, remarriage, or cohabitation
for more than three months, whichever event shall occur
first. Pursuant to article 3.2 of the agreement, the
defendant is required to pay the plaintiff a minimum of $3000
per month, with an additional amount owed based on the annual
earnings of the defendant. Specifically, the agreement
provides that the defendant is to pay additional alimony as
follows: 30 percent of his earned income in excess of $102,
000 and less than $150, 000; 20 percent of his earned income
in excess of $150, 000 and less than $200, 000; and 0 percent
of his earned income in excess of $200, 000. The agreement
also states in article 3.4 that in any year in which the
defendant does not pay the maximum annual alimony amount, he
shall provide the plaintiff, upon written request, with
copies of his quarterly paychecks and his year-end W-2 or
1099 forms reflecting ‘‘earned income.''
The
agreement also addressed a $160, 000 loan that the defendant
had received from his employer, Royal Bank of Canada (Royal
Bank), of which approximately $46, 000 was unspent and in the
defendant's possession. According to article 6.2 of the
agreement, the entirety of the loan was to be forgiven by
Royal Bank, and the income imputed to the defendant, over a
series of years, and reflected on his W-2. Moreover, the
agreement specified that this imputed income
‘‘shall be included in the computation of
unallocated alimony . . . .''
On
March 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a postjudgment motion for
contempt, which alleged that the defendant had
‘‘refused to voluntarily pay alimony based on
[his] 2016 earnings and as stipulated in the divorce
decree.'' On June 13, 2017, the court held an
evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff's motion and
received testimony from both parties. During the hearing, the
plaintiff argued that, based on the defendant's 2016 W-2
form, his earned income was $168, 765.91, which, thus,
required him to pay additional alimony as outlined in the
parties' agreement. In response, the defendant stipulated
that although he did owe the plaintiff additional alimony, he
calculated his earned income to be approximately $104, 744.
In reaching this figure, the defendant excluded his noncash
earnings, including income that had been imputed to him in
connection with his forgiven debt obligations to Royal Bank,
and deducted from his cash earnings certain business and
medical related expenses.
In an
order dated June 18, 2017, the court denied the motion for
contempt but nonetheless agreed with the plaintiff that, for
the purpose of calculating additional alimony, the
defendant's earned income was the figure reflected on his
W-2 form, i.e., $168, 765.91. The court, therefore, found
that the defendant had failed to pay additional alimony as
required by the parties' agreement and ordered that he
pay the plaintiff $3753.18 no later than August 25,
2017.[1] From this decision, both parties now
appeal. Additional facts will be set forth as needed.
I
In his
appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly
concluded that his earned income was the amount reflected on
his W-2 form. Specifically, the defendant argues that the
court, in calculating his earned income, should have (1)
deducted from his cash earnings the business expenses
provided on his 2016 tax return, as these costs were
unreimbursed and necessary to the defendant's
compensation as a commissioned salesman, and (2) excluded his
noncash earnings, including amounts ...