SCHWARZ V. SCHWARZ
124 Conn.App. 472 (2010)
NATURE OF THE CASE: H appeals from the judgment granting both his motion and the motion
filed by W for modification of alimony and increasing his alimony obligation from $2000 per
week to $2175 per week.
FACTS: H and W's twenty-nine-year marriage was dissolved and their separation agreement
provided that H shall pay alimony to W in the amount of $2000 per week until the death of
either party or W's remarriage. It also specifically stated that 'alimony shall be subject
to section 46b-86(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.' H filed a post judgment motion to
modify alimony because of a substantial change in the financial circumstances of the W in
that she was residing with another individual. W's motion requested an increase in alimony
because of a substantial change in the financial circumstances of both parties. W claimed
that H's financial circumstances substantially had improved as a result of an increase in
his income and his remarriage and that her financial circumstances had deteriorated as a
result of a substantial increase in the cost of premiums for her health insurance coverage,
which she was unable to pay. The court filed its memorandum of decision granting both
parties' motions for modification of alimony and ordering H to pay alimony in the amount of
$2175 per week. At the time of the dissolution H had a gross income of $373,620 per year and
a net income, excluding his deduction for retirement, of $265,980 per year. At the time of
the hearing on the motions for modification, H had a gross income of $450,000 per year and a
net income, excluding his deduction for retirement, of $301,756 per year. Since the time of
the dissolution of the marriage, H had remarried, and his new wife had a gross income of
approximately $150,000 per year. The court found that the increase in H's financial
circumstances as well as the decrease in his expenses, as he was sharing living expenses
with his new wife, constituted a substantial change in circumstances. W claimed that there
was a substantial change in circumstances due to a substantial increase in the cost of her
health insurance coverage. W anticipated paying approximately $15,000 per year for her
health insurance. H claims that the court erred when it found that the increase in his
income constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of his
alimony obligation.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment