Elmore v. Elmore

• Decision Date: 11 December 1951
• Citation: 85 A.2d 491,138 Conn. 408
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ELMORE v. ELMORE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 491

85 A.2d 491

138 Conn. 408

ELMORE v. ELMORE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 11, 1951.

George Schwolsky, Hartford, with whom were Samuel S. Goldstein, Samuel Freed, Hartford, and, on the brief, John W. Joy, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

James N. Egan, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was William E. Egan, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN and INGLIS, JJ.

JENNINGS, Judge.

The judgment in this case awarded the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of habitual intemperance, custody of two minor children with rights of reasonable visitation in the defendant at the residence of the plaintiff, alimony and support. As alimony, there were awarded to the plaintiff the family residence, free of mortgage, and $25,000, payable $10,000 in two weeks and the balance within a year, plus $25 a week. The defendant was also ordered to pay the plaintiff $15 per week for the support of each child. The finding fails to disclose any claims of law made by the defendant, as required by Practice Book, § 344, although certain claims of fact are so denominated. Nevertheless, the claims of the defendant will be briefly noticed.

The brief of the defendant states two issues on appeal: (1) The award of alimony was an abuse of discretion. (2) The limitation upon the privilege of visitation, confining it to the residence of the plaintiff, was also an abuse of discretion. The second issue is without merit. Findings supported by ample evidence were adequate to support the order in view of conditions existing at the time of trial. The conduct of the defendant was not such as to commend him to any court. If conditions change, an application for modification can always be made.

The award of alimony was large both intrinsically and in relation to the defendant's means. His principal asset was an interest in a closely held family corporation engaged in the manufacture of burial vaults. The trial court recognized the difficulty of putting a fair value on this business, but there was evidence which the court found credible to support a valuation of $100,000. The net worth of the defendant is not specifically stated in the finding, but from the memorandum of decision the trial court evidently based its award on a net worth of $75,000 as a reasonable estimate of the excess of assets over debts. Admissions in the defendant's draft finding confirm this figure and also indicate that the award of $25,000 plus the residence clear of mortgage amounts to nearly half of the defendant's net worth. As stated above, it is the defendant's claim that the award of this lump sum plus weekly payments of $25...