The Connecticut Appellate Court’s recent opinion in R.D. v. G.D., __ Conn. App. __ (2026), addresses some common financial questions in marriage dissolution cases, including an issue of first impression. What happens when a party’s income increases dramatically after separation but before dissolution? Can a court award pendente lite alimony “retroactively” at the time of judgment? Must mandatory distributions from an inherited retirement asset be included in income for purposes of calculating a child support presumptive minimum? The court’s answers to each of these questions are instructive and should be understood by trial practitioners for how to best protect and advise their clients.
Post-Separation Income Increases Are Fair Game for Alimony
The defendant was unemployed for a number of years leading up to the parties’ separation and filing of divorce. The defendant argued that Supreme Court precedent in Dan v. Dan, 315 Conn. 1 (2014), which prohibits modifications of alimony based on an increase in income alone, should likewise bar a higher alimony award based on income at the time of dissolution that was not reflective of the parties’ income when they were together.
The appellate court rejected this argument, citing its precedent predating Dan in Panganiban v. Panganiban, 54 Conn. App. 634 (1999). In Panganiban, the husband won the lottery during the post-separation, pre-dissolution period, and the court affirmed the trial court’s inclusion of that income in setting an alimony order. In this case, the court pointed out that the Supreme Court in Dan had specifically distinguished its holding from Panganiban on the basis that (1) the husband in Panganiban won the lottery during the marriage, and (2) Dan involved a post-dissolution modification, not an initial award of alimony. Moreover, the appellate court further held that even if Dan applied by analogy, the trial court’s recitation of the statutory factors under Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-82 established that the alimony award was not based solely on an increase in income.
Attorneys representing potential payors of alimony should advise their clients that post-separation finances will continue to be relevant to the ultimate financial award at the time of dissolution. The flip side, of course, is that clients should be advised that efforts to defer an income increase could lead to an imputation of income. Attorneys representing the potential recipients of alimony should ensure the trial court expressly considers the statutory alimony factors under Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-82 to limit appellate review to abuse of discretion.
Pendente Lite Alimony Can Be Awarded at the Time of Dissolution
The plaintiff filed a motion for pendente lite alimony early on in the case, but the motion was not decided and such alimony was not awarded until the time of judgment. The defendant claimed on appeal that the trial court had incorrectly awarded pendente lite alimony “retroactively.” The defendant analogized the trial court’s order to an invalid retroactive modification of alimony in the absence of a pending motion to modify.
The appellate court rejected this argument and first cited to the express language of Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-83(a), which allows the trial court to award pendente lite alimony “at any time” and effective “from the date of filing [the] application.” It further cited its recent precedent in Hallock v. Hallock, 228 Conn. App. 81 (2024), in which the court affirmed a trial court’s decision to handle a pendente lite motion as part of its final dissolution order.
Attorneys representing movants should not consider pendente lite alimony a lost cause if it is not awarded prior to trial. Press for a decision on it, specifically request retroactivity, and present the evidence necessary to support such an award. Conversely, attorneys should advise their clients facing a motion for pendente lite alimony that sits without a decision that such a motion could ultimately result in a significant arrearage at the time of dissolution.
Footnote 17 of the court’s opinion also addresses an interesting procedural point. The plaintiff filed a second motion for pendente lite alimony a year after her original one, and prior to trial sought a hearing without mentioning the original motion. But because in the proposed orders filed before the trial the plaintiff specifically sought an award back to the date of the first motion, the appellate court deemed the first motion was not abandoned.
Distributions from an Inherited IRA Was Non-Income for Child Support Purposes
The plaintiff inherited an individual retirement account (IRA) from which she was required to take taxable minimum distributions. The trial court expressly stated that it considered the IRA and the distributions therefrom as an asset for purposes of equitable distribution, but did not consider it as part of income for alimony and child support purposes. The trial court further ordered that retirement assets be equalized, resulting in the defendant transferring certain retirement assets to the plaintiff.
The appellate court considered the issue of whether such a distribution was necessarily income for child support purposes as a matter of first impression. It began its analysis by reviewing the regulatory definitions of income, which specifically include “pension and retirement income.” The court, however, distinguished inherited IRA mandatory distributions from ordinary IRA distributions on two grounds. First, the account was more akin to a savings account, as a beneficiary could not make additional contributions but could withdraw at their discretion without penalty. Second, the mandatory nature of the distributions means that such distributions were not necessarily amounts reflecting addition or gain from the underlying asset and thus might not meet the typical definition of income. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court had appropriately excluded the inherited IRA distributions from the plaintiff’s income under the child support guidelines.
Although it is not explicitly discussed, the court’s reasoning seemingly relies on the nature of a mandatory distribution; the beneficiary is required to draw down the entire account by a certain date and thus will be invading principal. But the court does not specifically address whether a portion of a mandatory distribution that specifically reflects income in addition to principal could be considered retirement income. Thus, attorneys facing an inherited IRA that is continuing to realize significant gains during a mandatory distribution period should marshal appropriate evidence to delineate between those gains and a return of principal.
The appellate court’s thorough opinion is a useful and practical road map for handling financial issues that frequently arise in marital dissolution actions. It is important for trial attorneys to be aware of these holdings so they may best position their clients’ claims at trial or on appeal and appropriately inform their clients of potential exposure.