Legal Articles, Divorce & Family Law
Despite Father’s Unemployment, Court Awards Support Based on Earning Capacity
A Connecticut Superior Court again applied the principle of utilizing a party’s “earning capacity” – rather than actual earnings – to the modification of a support award in post-judgment matrimonial action. In this case the court awards support due to earning capacity. Earning capacity is not an amount that a person can “theoretically earn,” nor is it confined to actual income, but rather it is an amount which an individual “can realistically be expected to earn, considering his skills, age and health.” Weinstein v. Weinstein, 104 Conn.App. 482, 489, 934 A.2d 306 (2007), Elia v. Elia, 99 Conn. App. 829, 833, 916 A.2d 845 (2007).
Court Awards Wife Alimony in the Amount of $6,000 Per Month
In Klages v. Klages, a case involving alimony, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. FV104034594S, the plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married in Pennsylvania on October 9, 1993. At the time of trial, they had four children ranging in age from six to eleven.
Court Transfers Guardianship of Child to Maternal Grandmother
In a case involving the the transfer of guardianship, the Court granted a mother’s motion to transfer guardianship to the child’s maternal grandmother. DCF initially became involved in the matter after receiving reports that the parents were engaging in domestic violence and substance abuse. Although the Court originally entered an order of protective supervision, DCF later invoked a 96 hour hold and sought an Order of Temporary Custody following a subsequent altercation between the parents. The Court sustained that OTC and the child was committed to the care of the Department.
Court Rules that Evidence of Prior Actions May Be Used to Substantiate Neglect
In an appeal involving Substantiate Neglect, the Court (Cohn, J.), explained that in the context of DCF proceedings, evidence of prior actions may be used to substantiate physical neglect. In that particular case, the appellant and his wife had a history of engaging in domestic violence, and one of their children reported constant yelling which made her stomach hurt.
Request for Attorneys’ Fees in Divorce Hearing Denied: Court Finds that Wife “Cannot be Rewarded for Her Own Financial Indiscretions.”
The Superior Court in the Judicial District of Fairfield (Owens, JTR) issued a decision following a contested post-judgment divorce hearing in which an ex-wife, of whom had financial indiscretions, sought attorneys’ fees from her ex-husband in an amount of “not less than $50,000.00.”
Alimony: Court Orders Father to Pay College Tuition Up to Full UCONN Cap
A Connecticut Appellate Court decision emphasizes the importance of formulating clear and unambiguous language when crafting an alimony agreement regarding the payment of college expenses under Connecticut General Statutes §46b-56. In Loso v. Loso, 132 Conn. App. 257 (2011), the parties entered into a post-judgment agreement pursuant to which the defendant is obligated “to pay for one-half the cost of [his daughter’s] college educational expenses for a four year degree net of scholarships or grants subject to the limitation that said cost shall not exceed the tuition for a full-time residential student at UCONN-Storrs.”
Courts Permitted to Award Time Limited Alimony for Rehabilitative Purposes
In determining whether alimony should be awarded - as well as the duration and amount of the award - there are several statutory criteria that must be considered. Although these well-settled factors provide courts and litigants with some direction, there is no precise formula, and judges are afforded significant discretion is fashioning support awards. In a recent appellate decision, the Court pointed out that in exercising such discretion, trial judges may consider whether time limited alimony is appropriate merely for rehabilitative purposes in cases where a future event will enable an ex-spouse to become self-sufficient.
Court Awards Wife Alimony in Addition to a Portion of Husband’s Business
It is well recognized that in dissolution actions, a trial court may exercise broad discretion when dividing property and awarding alimony, as long as it considers all relevant statutory criteria. For many reasons, one of which is that a trial judge has the benefit of observing witnesses first hand, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s decision unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.
This of course is a very heavy burden for an appellant to satisfy, but the standard makes sense, and is not insurmountable. That being said, the appellate process presents its own challenges and to the extent an appellate court may exercise its own discretion to arrive at a desired result, it can be relatively unpredictable.
Court Issues $20,000 Monthly Alimony Award in Stamford Divorce
In Cunningham v. Cunningham, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. FA094017494S (March 9, 2011, Shay, J.), the plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married for approximately twenty-two years, and had two minor children. At the time of the divorce, one child was enrolled in college and the other was in high school. The parties both lived in Stamford, Connecticut and went to court to negotiate an alimony agreement.
Earning Capacity: Alimony and the Invisible Paycheck
Things change. Incomes rise and fall, jobs come and go, marriages last…and some of them do not. In an economy where the only constant is unpredictability, a theme of increasing frequency in divorce litigation is the difficulty in calculating appropriate alimony or child support figures when earning capacity is taken into account. When a breadwinner has fallen on hard times – late in a marriage, during a divorce, or immediately thereafter – and is constrained to take a cut in income, should support figures be based on what he or she now earns, or should they instead be based upon what could be earned given that person’s experience, education, credentials, and marketability?