Legal Articles, Divorce & Family Law
Court Modifies Unallocated Alimony and Support Down to $3,200 per Month
In Rosen v. Grand, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. FSTFA044000277S (Aug. 25, 2011, Wenzel, J.), the plaintiff’s husband filed a motion to modify his unallocated alimony and support payments six years after the parties’ divorce. The plaintiff and defendant were originally married in 1989 and had two children together. When they were divorced on January 13, 2005, the court incorporated into its final decree the terms of a separation agreement entered into between the parties.
Can a Connecticut Court Enforce or Modify My Divorce Judgment if it Was Issued in Another State?
Can a Connecticut Court Enforce or Modify My Divorce Judgment if it Was Issued in Another State?
Court Awards Wife Alimony for a Period of Ten Years with Safe Harbor for Husband Up to $250,000 Annually
In a dissolution of marriage action pending in the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, the Court awarded the wife unallocated alimony and child support in the amount of $1,000 per week. The parties were married in 1999 and were the parents of two children, both of whom were minors at the time of trial. The Husband was thirty-eight years of age, had a degree in engineering, and worked for a family business owned by his father. The wife was forty years of age. She did not have a college degree and worked only seven hours per week.
Wife Found in Contempt of Court’s “Automatic Orders”
In a decision rendered in a dissolution of marriage action, a wife was found in contempt for depriving her husband of information regarding the parties’ two minor children in violation of the court’s “automatic orders.” In this particular case, the parties were married 1991, and were the parents of two children. At the time of trial the husband was forty-three years old and in generally good health. He had an associate’s degree and worked for a supply company earning approximately $51,000 annually.
Court Awards Wife Alimony Based on Husband’s Earning Capacity Despite His Unemployment
In a divorce action pending in the Judicial District of Stamford at Norwalk, the court awarded a wife alimony and child support based on the husband’s earning capacity even though he was unemployed at the time of trial.
Court Denies Mother’s Request to Relocate with Minor Child
In a post judgment divorce action originating in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, Judge Prestley denied a mother’s request to relocate to France with the parties’ children. The parties were married in 1981 and after twenty-six years, sought and obtained a divorce in 2008. During their marriage, the parties had three children, born in 1988, 1992 and 1998. The youngest child was the only minor at the time of the post judgment action.
In Dissolution Matter, Trial Court Orders Amended Complaint After Third-Party Intervenes
In a divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford considered a third-party defendant’s motion for order regarding the status of pleadings in a marriage dissolution action.
Taking the First Step: How to Hire and What to Expect from a Divorce Lawyer in Connecticut
Taking the First Step: How to Hire and What to Expect from a Divorce Lawyer in Connecticut
Court Conditions Alimony Payments on the Sale of the Parties’ Marital Residence
Following trial in a dissolution of marriage action pending in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford, the Court awarded the wife alimony, but conditioned payments on the sale of the marital residence. The parties were married in 1973 and were the parents of two children, both of whom were over the age of twenty-three at the time of trial. The husband was most recently employed by a family run business he formed in the early 1990’s, until he quit on January 1, 2012.
Court Grants Wife’s Motion to Dismiss Divorce Action Where Parties Moved to Connecticut with Intention of Returning to California
Before filing for divorce in Connecticut, prospective litigants must satisfy certain statutory jurisdictional criteria. This often becomes an issue where parties were married in Connecticut, but one spouse (or both) subsequently moved to another state. As illustrated by a decision rendered in the Superior Court of Stamford, this type of situation could impact a court’s ability to hear the case.
