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.

In the case of Sweeney v. Sweeney, a former husband filed for a modification of the amount of alimony that the husband was paying to his former wife. Under the terms of a divorce decree, the husband could have the amount of alimony modified when he obtained the age of 59 and retired from his job.

The court noted that under the terms of the earlier divorce judgment the husband could petition for a modification of the amount of the alimony award when the husband reached the age of 59 and retired. The court noted that there had been a substantial change of circumstances since the original judgment had been entered. The husband was not currently working and was living off of his retirement assets that were not subject to distribution by the court. The court noted, however, that it was not necessarily required to modify the alimony award to zero. It was clear by the language of the agreement and judgment, that the parties did not intend the husband's alimony obligation terminate on the occurrence retirement as a triggering event. The court noted that the wife was just able to cover her expenses with her employment income and alimony income. Reviewing the factors set forth by Connecticut law, the wife continued to demonstrate a need for alimony and the husband continued to retain some earning capacity. The court ordered the husband's alimony obligation reduced to $ 100.00 per week, until such time as the wife was eligible for social security benefits.

The court ordered the husband's support obligation to be reduced from $400 per week to $100 per week. “Clearly there has been a substantial change of circumstances. Under the terms of the judgment, alimony award may be modified. [The husband] is not currently working, consequently is living off his assets which are not subject to distribution by this court” said the court. “However, this does not necessarily mandate the court modify the alimony award to zero. It is clear by the language of the agreement and judgment, that the parties did not intend for the [husband’s] alimony obligation to terminate.”

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: Sweeney v. Sweeney, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 477 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 23, 2005)