Simpson v. Simpson

Connecticut Supreme Court · 2025 · Family Law

Family LawSeparation AgreementsContract InterpretationChild SupportAlimonyseparation agreementambiguityextrinsic evidence

Facts

The parties' dissolution judgment incorporated a separation agreement requiring the defendant to pay base child support and alimony and, beginning in 2016, additional percentages of his gross bonus or profit sharing. Sections 4.2 and 6.4 stated that no child support or alimony would be paid on the defendant's gross earned income in excess of $700,000 per calendar year, while also defining bonus or profit sharing as the total gross payment less portions attributable to his normal monthly draw and quarterly tax payment draw. After the defendant's compensation increased, the plaintiff filed postjudgment motions claiming he had failed to pay the required additional amounts. The trial court found the relevant provisions unclear, rejected contempt, but adopted the plaintiff's formula for remedial orders; the Appellate Court reversed, holding the agreement unambiguously favored the defendant.

Issue

Were the separation agreement's provisions governing additional child support and alimony based on bonuses and profit sharing unambiguous in relieving the defendant of any obligation once his gross earned income exceeded $700,000? If not, should the case be remanded for the trial court to determine the parties' intent through extrinsic evidence?

Rule

A court construing a separation agreement incorporated into a dissolution judgment applies ordinary contract principles. The agreement must be read as a whole, with every provision given effect if possible; if the language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the parties' intent becomes a question of fact to be resolved by the trial court through consideration of available extrinsic evidence and the circumstances surrounding formation of the agreement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a dissolution judgment entered in Hartford, a separation agreement requires Evan Brooks to pay monthly alimony based on his regular salary and, separately, 18% of any annual incentive compensation. The agreement also states that no alimony shall be paid on Evan's gross earned income above $600,000 per year, and defines incentive compensation as the total annual payment less any amount attributable to his regular salary draw.

If Riley Brooks argues the cap applies only after accounting for salary already covered by base alimony, while Evan argues no additional incentive-based alimony is owed once his total salary and incentive exceed $600,000, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. A separation agreement incorporated into a dissolution judgment is construed under ordinary contract principles. The court must read the agreement as a whole and give effect to all provisions if possible. If the language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and the parties' intent becomes a factual question for the trial court to resolve through extrinsic evidence and surrounding circumstances. (Derived from Simpson v. Simpson (n.d.).)