There is no alimony formula in Connecticut. Here is what the judge weighs instead.

Connecticut has no alimony formula, and this is not an oversight. There is no percentage of income, no bracket tied to the length of the marriage, no cap, and no presumptive amount — not for the award entered at the decree, and not for the temporary award that runs while the case is pending. The judge decides it on a list of factors.

The proof is sitting in the same chapter. Connecticut does have statewide guidelines with the force of regulation — for child support, under C.G.S. s. 46b-215a. The modification section, s. 46b-86(a), refers to them repeatedly. There is no counterpart for alimony anywhere in Chapter 815j, and no statewide alimony guideline is published on the Connecticut Judicial Branch’s own site. The legislature knew how to write a number when it wanted one.

OneWhat Connecticut does put a number on, and what it does not

The contrast is the clearest thing on this page, because both halves of it live in the same chapter of the same title.

Two other states show what a legislature does when it decides to write a number. Florida caps durational alimony at the recipient’s reasonable need or 35 per cent of the difference between the parties’ net incomes, whichever is less, under Fla. Stat. s. 61.08(8)(c). New Hampshire writes a percentage into its own statute and even provides for what happens if the federal tax treatment changes. Connecticut has done neither.

TwoThe power the court actually has

Before the factors, the grant of authority — because the verb in it is “may”, and that is where the discretion starts.

Note the word Connecticut uses. Chapter 815j says alimony, and it distinguishes alimony ordered at the decree (s. 46b-82) from alimony pendente lite (s. 46b-83) and from periodic alimony and permanent alimony, both of which appear in the modification section (s. 46b-86). These are not interchangeable terms, and which one is in your order changes what can be done to it later.

ThreeWhat the judge has to weigh, in the statute’s own words

This is the list that stands where a formula would be. It governs whether there is an award at all, how much it is, and how long it runs — all three from the same sentence.

Unpacked into what each item actually asks, in the statute’s own order:

FourDuration: no bracket, but a requirement to explain

“The length of the marriage” is the first factor in the list. It is not a bracket, and nothing converts it into one.

What Connecticut does instead is unusual, and it is the closest thing in the chapter to a constraint on duration: it makes the court explain itself when an award has no end date.

The verb is shall. An open-ended award is permitted, but it has to be justified on the record with specificity. That is a procedural check rather than a numeric one — and it is the only thing in Chapter 815j pointed at the length of an award.

FiveWhether behavior matters, and the one absolute bar

Connecticut’s answer differs depending on which award you are talking about, and the asymmetry is written into the statute rather than left to the judge.

Same list, one item removed. So conduct can move the final number and cannot move the temporary one — which is worth knowing, because the temporary order often runs for a long time and often sets expectations for what follows.

The one absolute bar, and it is not about marital fault

Connecticut has exactly one provision that removes the court’s discretion altogether, and it is tied to a criminal conviction, not to the reasons a marriage failed.

SixWhat ends it, what changes it, and what cannot be changed

Cohabitation is a ground to modify, not an automatic end

Read what that text does not say. It does not define “living with another person”. It sets no minimum period. And living together is not by itself enough — the arrangement must alter the financial needs of the recipient. Nothing happens automatically; somebody has to move.

And a privately negotiated clause displaces all of that. The closing sentence of s. 46b-86(b): “In the event that a final judgment incorporates a provision of an agreement in which the parties agree to circumstances, other than as provided in this subsection, under which alimony will be modified, including suspension, reduction, or termination of alimony, the court shall enforce the provision of such agreement and enter orders in accordance therewith.” If the two of you wrote your own trigger into the judgment, the court enforces your words and the statute’s financial-needs test does not apply.

Death, remarriage and retirement are not default endings

Connecticut does not legislate them as termination events. Section 46b-82(b) refers to an order that “will terminate only upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the alimony recipient” as something a court may order — not as a rule that operates of itself. Cohabitation is the one living-arrangement event the chapter addresses at all.

Modification, and how to make an award unmodifiable

Three things follow. First, non-modifiable alimony is expressly permitted, and the authority is the section’s opening words — unless and to the extent that the decree precludes modification. Second, particular contingencies can be frozen by agreement: the section allows that “those items or circumstances that were contemplated and are not to be changed may be specified in the written agreement, stipulation or decision of the court.” Third, the date that matters for a modification is the date notice of the motion is served, not the date circumstances changed. Waiting costs money that cannot be recovered.

And when a substantial change is proved, the court goes back to the same list: s. 46b-86(a) directs it to determine what modification is appropriate “considering the criteria set forth in section 46b-82.” No formula on the way in, and no formula on the way back.

SevenThe tax rule changed in 2018, and most guides still describe the old one

For a divorce or separation instrument executed after 31 December 2018, alimony is not deductible by the person paying it and not taxable to the person receiving it. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the provisions that made it otherwise. For an instrument executed on or before that date the old treatment continues — deductible to the payer, taxable to the recipient — unless it is later modified and the modification expressly adopts the new rule.

Under the old rule a higher-rate payer could shift income to a lower-rate recipient and the two of them shared the saving. That saving no longer exists, which changes what any given number is worth to each side of the table — and in a state with no formula, it changes what a reasonable number even looks like.

Connecticut’s own income tax follows the federal treatment, so the federal answer above is the whole answer here, with no state adjustment either way. Four states do not follow it — Arkansas, California, New Jersey and New York — which is worth knowing rather than assuming if income or residence crosses a line. Connecticut also uses rolling conformity: a change to the federal Internal Revenue Code reaches Connecticut automatically, without the legislature having to act.

Authority: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 115-97, s. 11051, repealing Internal Revenue Code sections 71 and 215; see also IRS Publication 504. State treatment: Connecticut Dept. of Revenue Services, Resident Income Tax Information.