Legal Articles, Divorce & Family Law
Court Decides Issue of First Impression Regarding Payment of College Expenses
In a decision, a Connecticut Superior Court addressed an issue of first impression regarding the payment of college expenses, namely whether the Connecticut Superior Courts have the authority to enter an educational support order for a child that has reached the age of majority when entering a child support order for a minor child. The parties in this particular case were married in Chile and had two children before obtaining a divorce (also in Chile) in 1991. The Chilean divorce decree did not contain any provisions regarding child support or the payment of college expenses.
Husband Ordered to Pay Ex-Wife Value of Retirement Portfolio
In a decision, a court ordered a husband to pay to his ex-wife the value of a mutual fund he liquidated after the parties’ divorce. The parties obtained an uncontested divorce in 2011. At the time of dissolution, they each had their own retirement accounts, as well as a mutual fund portfolio which consisted of a retirement fund owned solely by the wife and a non-retirement fund which the parties owned jointly. As a whole, the portfolio was worth approximately $85,000. Although the parties addressed their individually owned retirement accounts in their separation agreement, they did not separately address the jointly owned non-retirement component of the portfolio in question.
In Divorce Actions, “Double Dipping” Analysis Applies to Intellectual Property
In a decision, the Connecticut Appellate Court held that a trial court erred in treating intellectual property as a marital asset subject to division while also awarding the wife a percentage of the income derived therefrom. The parties in this particular case were married in 1992 and were the parents of two children. In the underlying divorce action, the trial court found that although the parties were struggling financially, the husband had published a book from which he was experiencing financial gain.
Court Permits Mother to Travel Internationally with Minor Children without Providing Prior Notice to Children’s Father
In a decision, the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld a lower court ruling that allowed a mother to travel internationally with the parties’ minor children without providing prior notice to, or receiving permission from, the children’s father. The parties in this post judgment divorce action were married for approximately three years and were the parents of two minor children.
In Divorce Action, Court Awards Wife 30% of Husband’s Income Over $85,000
In a divorce action, the Superior Court of Waterbury rendered a decision awarding a wife $250.00 per week in alimony, plus thirty percent of the husband’s income over $85,000.00. The parties were married in 2004, and were the parents of two minor children. At the time of trial the wife was forty-one years of age, was in generally good health, and possessed both a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree. During the marriage she had been employed as an administrator, and was currently earning just under $50,000.00 per year based on a thirty-two hour work week.
Connecticut Legislation Concerning Third Party Visitation
In what appears to be an effort to clarify, and perhaps simplify, the law regarding visitation rights of grandparents and other third parties, the Connecticut legislature has enacted Public Act No. 12-137, which became effective October 1, 2012. Essentially codifying the standards set forth in Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002), the Connecticut legislature has revised and supplemented C.G.S. § 46b-59.
Divorce Litigation: Personal Information on Public Display
Divorce Litigation: Personal Information on Public Display
Court Explains Books are Not Included in the Definition of Necessary Educational Expenses
In a decision, the Superior Court addressed the impact of C.G.S.A. § 46b-56c on the parties’ respective obligations to contribute toward the cost of books required for their child’s college education. By way of background, the parties obtained an uncontested divorce on January 23, 2008. Pursuant to the terms of their separation agreement, the plaintiff husband was responsible for 100% of the cost of their children’s post secondary education in accordance with the limitations and definitions set forth in C.G.S.A. §46b-56c. The parties agreed that if either child attended an institution with costs above those charged by the University of Connecticut, then the parties would be equally responsible for the additional charges.
Faulty Misconceptions of Connecticut No-Fault Divorce
Connecticut is known as a no-fault divorce state. In fact, almost all of the states in this country now have provisions for no-fault divorce. While controversy will continue to exist as to whether no-fault divorce provisions have led to the downfall of marriage in the United States, the question is … doesn’t fault always matter?
Court Finds that Husband Dissipated Marital Assets in Divorce Action
A Connecticut Appellate Court decision rendered subsequent to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Gershman v. Gershman, 286 Conn. 341 (2007), further demonstrates the circumstances under which courts may conclude that a spouse has engaged in the dissipation of martial assets. In Shaulson v. Shaulson, 125 Conn. App. 734 (2010), the parties were divorced in 2008 following a trial on financial issues.
Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer
Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.
