The defendant, Janet O'Bryan, appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court. The issue presented in this appeal is whether a trial court has the authority under General Statutes § 46b-66
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts and procedural history. "On October 18,
"On December 14, 1999, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify his child support payments by directing a portion of the support directly to the older child, who was then twenty and living independently. On February 14, 2000, the defendant filed a motion for modification seeking to increase child support due to a substantial change in circumstances, namely, an increase in the plaintiff's income. On April 10, 2000, the court granted both motions for modification. The court ordered that child support be increased by 20 percent and that 50 percent of the child support payment be paid directly to the older child and the other 50 percent to the defendant." O'Bryan v. O'Bryan, 67 Conn.App. 51, 52-53, 787 A.2d 15 (2001).
Thereafter, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court improperly had modified the plaintiff's obligation to pay postmajority child support because the parties did not have a written agreement that provided that the court could modify postmajority child support as required by § 46b-66. The Appellate Court agreed and reversed the judgment of the trial court. Id., 53. The plaintiff petitioned for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court to this court, and we granted certification, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court did not have authority,
"After fully considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court properly resolved the issue in this certified appeal. A further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose."
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.