If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
The Connecticut Court of Appeals reversed an alimony ruling in favor of the defendant. The Defendant, Barry McTiernan, brought forth this appeal following the lower court’s finding that a separation agreement had unambiguously set forth the conditions of alimony in favor of the Plaintiff, Mary McTiernan.
The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dissolved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court granting, in part, the plaintiff’s post-judgment motion for contempt regarding the defendant’s alleged noncompliance with an unallocated alimony and child support order, and from the trial court’s subsequent award to the plaintiff of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees related to the motion for contempt. Pursuant to paragraph 4.3 of the parties’ separation agreement, the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff as unallocated alimony and child support a sum equal to 45 percent of his gross annual earned income, which was defined as cash compensation for personal services from current or future employment, including, but not limited to, wages, salary, bonuses, commissions and partnership distributions. The defendant claimed, that the trial court, in concluding that he had not complied with the unallocated alimony and child support order, improperly interpreted “gross annual earned income,” as that term is defined in the separation agreement, to include certain distributions he had received from a capital account of a limited partnership in which he owned an interest.
The trial court improperly determined that paragraph 4.3 of the separation agreement unambiguously provided that distributions from the capital account of the limited partnership constituted part of the defendant’s gross annual earned income for purpose of calculating the plaintiff’s unallocated alimony order, the intent of the parties having been unclear as to that issue, the plaintiff having failed to present any evidence regarding the parties’ intent in crafting the disputed provisions of the separation agreement, and the court having failed to articulate any factual findings with respect to the intent of the parties in enacting the contractual language. The defendant argued that the agreement was ambiguous, and that his interpretation of the contractual arrangement was not unreasonable. The appeals court found that the court had abused its discretion by finding this agreement to unambiguously rule in the plaintiffs favor.
The court reversed the lower court’s decision, and is pending further proceeding.
For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.
Source: McTiernan v. McTiernan, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 161 (Conn. App. Ct. April 14, 2016)
