Villao v. Paz — Connecticut Appellate Court orders new trial on all financial issues

Case
Jonathan I. Villao v. Grisell V. Paz
Court
Connecticut Appellate Court
Judge
Suarez, J.; Seeley, J.; Westbrook, J.
Date Decided
September 8, 2026
Docket No.
AC 48574
Topics
Divorce; Child support; Financial orders; Appellate review
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Jonathan I. Villao brought this dissolution action against Grisell V. Paz, and Paz filed a cross complaint seeking enforcement of a prenuptial agreement. The trial court set aside that agreement, dissolved the marriage, and entered custody, child-support, alimony, property-distribution, and attorney-fee orders. The parties have two minor children.

The court ordered Paz to pay Villao $119 weekly in child support. It later explained that the factual basis for that award was a child-support-guidelines worksheet Paz had filed on the first day of trial. That worksheet listed Villao’s prior income from his longtime automotive-parts-store job, but Villao lost that job during the trial and later reported income from Uber driving.

The Court’s Holding

The Appellate Court held that the child-support order was an abuse of discretion. The $119 figure was not the presumptive child-support amount shown on the worksheet the trial court cited; it was instead the amount reserved to support qualified children. The trial court’s finding as to the presumptive award therefore lacked record support.

The court also held that reliance on the worksheet’s income figures was clearly erroneous because it did not reflect Villao’s current net income when the dissolution decision issued. Because the child-support order was part of an interconnected set of financial orders, the court reversed the judgment as to all financial orders and remanded for a new trial on child support, alimony, property distribution, and attorney’s fees. It affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Key Takeaways

  • A child-support award must rest on a correctly determined presumptive guidelines amount or supported findings justifying a deviation.
  • A court cannot treat an unrelated worksheet entry as the presumptive child-support obligation.
  • When an erroneous support order may affect the dissolution judgment’s financial mosaic, all financial orders may require reconsideration.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that trial courts must use current income information and accurately apply the child-support guidelines. An error in support calculations can require a wholesale retrial of dissolution-related financial relief, even when the appellate court identifies the error in only one order.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top