Page 26 - CLT062821

26 ■ JUNE 28, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

APPELLATE COURT of the statute that permits modification of an
alimony order upon a showing of substantial
change in circumstances.
FAMILY LAW
SUPERIOR COURT
Court Reversed Lower Court’s Denial
of Defendant’s Motion To Modify His CONTRACTS
Alimony Obligation

CASE: Schott v. Schott Not Having Legal Representation Does
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court Not Void Arbitration Award
DOC. NO.: AC 43541
COURT OPINION BY: Elgo CASE: Arvy’s Protein, Inc. v. A/F Protein, Inc.
DATE: June 15, 2021 • PAGES: 6 COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport

The parties’ marriage was previously dissolved. DOC. NO.: CV-20-6100673-S
Pursuant to a separation agreement entered COURT OPINION BY: Stevens
into between the parties and incorporated into DATE: June 07, 2021 • PAGES: 20
the court’s judgment of dissolution, defendant Plaintiff and defendant contracted so defendant
was obligated to pay alimony to plaintiff until would use plaintiff’s services to establish new pro-

plaintiff cohabited with another individual. cedures to produce antifreeze proteins. There were
Defendant filed a post-judgment motion to two contracts within the contract; first, there was a
modify his alimony obligation after learning small-scale test-run and, if successful, there would
that plaintiff had been living with her boy- be a larger application. Defendant was dissatis-
friend for two years. The trial court denied the fied with the small-scale result and decided not to
motion and defendant appealed. The court re- proceed to the second milestone. According to de-
versed. Defendant argued that pursuant to the fendant, plaintiff proposed an amendment to the
plain language of the separation agreement, the contract, but defendant wanted plaintiff to return
lower court was required to terminate his ali- defendant’s materials. The plaintiff refused and de-
mony obligation in light of evidence of plain- manded $9,000 in fees. Defendant then demanded
tiff’s cohabitation. The court agreed, finding arbitration under the terms of the agreement. At
that the trial court improperly denied defen- arbitration, defendant was awarded damages of
dant’s motion. The court found that the sepa- $66,345. Plaintiff brought suit because it argued
ration agreement was unambiguous as to that that the arbitrator disregarded the provisions of
specific condition, and there was evidence at the contract disclaiming warranties and limiting
the hearing that plaintiff was living with some- the plaintiff’s liability. But the court maintained
one else. The court held that the lower court that a court has no authority to vacate the arbi-
erroneously invoked sua sponte the provision tration award even if there is a presumption that
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune