Opinion
No. FA 93-0532514 S
August 14, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ISSUE
Defendant father is requesting a retroactive modification of his child support payments to the date of the eighteenth birthday of the oldest of his three children rather than the date of filing of said modification. Furthermore, he is requesting that any overage paid be applied to his past due support.
FACTS
The plaintiff and defendant were married on May 10, 1986. They have three children issue of the marriage:
Brandon — born July 1, 1984
Stephen — born October 17, 1990
Sean — born May 13, 1992
At the time of the dissolution the parties entered into an agreement which included a child support payment of $320 per week from father to mother on account of the children. The agreement states that the amount of child support is in accordance with the child support guidelines. It also contains language specifying that child support shall terminate upon the attainment of each child's eighteenth birthday and graduation from high school.
On July 6, 2006 the parties entered into an agreement which acknowledged that the defendant owed the plaintiff $2,240 in child support and $4,287.55 for unreimbursed medical expenses. The defendant agreed to continue paying $320 per week in child support.
On February 14, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to modify his child support obligation based on the oldest child's eighteenth birthday on July 1, 2007 and completion of high school on or about June 15, 2007. The defendant also requested that the excess payments, the difference between the court-ordered $320 and what he should have paid if he had obtained a reduction in July 2007, be applied to any arrearage he may still owe.
The parties, through counsel, began a trial before this court. During the proceedings they reached an agreement on all matters except for the issue of whether or not the defendant should receive an additional benefit of a retroactive decrease before the February 14, 2008 filing date.
The defendant has briefed the issue and the plaintiff relied on oral argument. The defendant relies on the line of cases that has held that "retroactivity is to the date of the occurrence of the event resulting in the support, as per the language of the agreement." See Kolkmeyer v Kolkmeyer, 18 Conn.App. 336 (1989); Miller v. Miller, 18 Conn. 610 (1980); Matles v. Matles, 8 Conn.App. 76 (1986); and Krichko v. Krichko, 108 Conn.App. 644 (2008).
The court, after a thorough review of the above cases as well as other case law, rejects the defendant's argument. A careful reading of the applicable provisions in the separation agreement indicates that although child support for each child terminates upon their eighteenth birthday and completion of high school, it does not contain language specifying the amount of child support to be paid on behalf of the remaining child(ren). Therefore, as to the issue of child support the agreement is not automatic and self-executing. Under these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the payor of support to file for a modification of child support to determine the appropriate amount to pay based on the parties' financial circumstances at the time of modification.
The defendant's request for a further retroactive reduction is denied.