Plaintiffs Lack Standing For Claims Against Future Alimony

If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, 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.

Four Connecticut men sued Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, asserting multiple facial constitutional challenges on how Connecticut awards alimony in divorce actions. Gov. Malloy moved to dismiss on lack of standing.

The Plaintiffs contend that Connecticut’s alimony process violates due process by placing an unconstitutional burden on the right to marry and re-marry. They also challenge that Connecticut’s alimony scheme unconstitutionally vests legislative policy making authority in courts without a means for sufficient appellate review. The Plaintiff’s further allege that Connecticut’s alimony process violates the due process clause by unfairly awarding attorney’s fees. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that First Amendment rights to petition for government redress are infringed by un-modifiable alimony awards.

Three of the four plaintiffs are currently divorced, and pay periodic alimony payments. They allege that their exposure and apprehension of further exposure to an unfair system violates their right to due process of law. The fourth plaintiff, a Robert Doe, adopts a pseudonym for fear that his wife may discover his plans to divorce her. He is unwilling to end a “broken marriage” because he fears “the injustices of the Connecticut court system because he has witnessed the experiences of many friends who have suffered through unjust alimony awards.”

The court found that none of the plaintiffs were subject to, or faced an imminent prospect of being subject to such an allegedly unconstitutional process for the award of alimony for which they bring their complaint.

Robert Doe had not initiated a divorce. And the mere apprehension of an imminent injury does not establish adequate standing. Furthermore, his fears are based upon a series of speculation.  The remaining plaintiffs had already gone through the alimony process. While they were certainly “touched” by the alimony process, they failed to establish a constitutional injury-in-fact, or “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief, but may serve as evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US 95.  No such evidence of possible is present in the case at hand. Overall, any imminence alleged was far too speculative to hold sufficient merit.

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: Lynch v. Malloy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68160 (D. Conn.).