Lupien v. Lupien
Citation | 472 A.2d 18,192 Conn. 443 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 13 March 1984 |
Parties | Rita A. LUPIEN v. Hervey A. LUPIEN. |
M. Fred DeCaprio, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PETERS, ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA and SPONZO, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her award of alimony. Because we hold that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the plaintiff was living with another person under circumstances that caused such a change of circumstances as to alter her financial needs, there is no error.
The parties were divorced on September 22, 1967, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $150 per week periodic alimony. In 1980, the defendant moved to "modify the Judgment by reducing, suspending or terminating the alimony." The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the plaintiff was living with another man under circumstances that caused a change in her financial needs. 1
Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that the plaintiff "is living openly with another man [and] receives support from this other man ...." The trial court modified the judgment of 1967 and ordered alimony terminated. The plaintiff appealed and alleges that there was insufficient evidence to find either that the plaintiff was living with another person or that her living arrangements had caused a change in her financial circumstances. We disagree.
To modify an award of alimony pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86(b), the trial court must find "that the party receiving the periodic alimony is living with another person under circumstances which the court finds should result in the modification, suspension, reduction or termination of alimony because the living arrangements cause such a change of circumstances as to alter the financial needs of that party." 2 See Kaplan v. Kaplan, 185 Conn. 42, 440 A.2d 252 (1981). The trial court so found but the plaintiff argues that its finding was "clearly erroneous."
The evidence before the court showed that Gilbert Poirier had been living in a room in the plaintiff's home for two years. The plaintiff was paid $30 weekly for food by Poirier and he performed numerous handyman chores for her. 3 These chores included roofing the garage, reconstruction of cubicles remaining from the defendant's dental practice, repair and maintenance of a swimming pool, and installation in the plaintiff's house of a wood stove owned by Poirier. Because of lack of finances, the plaintiff had not previously been able to "fix up" the house. Poirier and the plaintiff are "going steady" and "occasionally" have "marital relations." The plaintiff would like to marry him. After finding that the plaintiff and Poirier were "cohabiting" and that "the living arrangements ... have caused such a change of circumstances as to alter materially her financial needs," the trial court terminated the alimony award. 4
(Brackets in original.) Garrison v. Garrison, 190 Conn. 173, 176, 460 A.2d 945 (1983). There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous. Kaplan v. Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387, 391, 441 A.2d 629 (1982).
There was evidence in this case to indicate both that the plaintiff was living with another person and that this living arrangement caused such change in circumstances as to alter her financial needs. While termination of alimony is a harsh result, we are unable to say that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous. 5
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cofield
...of the witnesses and parties, which is not fully reflected in the cold, printed record which is available to us." Lupien v. Lupien, 192 Conn. 443, 445, 472 A.2d 18 (1984). Our review of the record shows that in light of the facts found by the trial court, Violissi was not acting on a whim o......
-
State v. Copeland
...cause to arrest the defendant for the arson, and it is well established that we do not find facts on appeal. Lupien v. Lupien, 192 Conn. 443, 445, 472 A.2d 18 (1984); Anderson v. Anderson, 191 Conn. 46, 51, 463 A.2d 578 (1983). In this case, however, it is obvious from the uncontroverted te......
-
Darak v. Darak
...apply where the legislature overturns a judicial interpretation of a statute rather than a purely legislative act.10 Lupien v. Lupien, 192 Conn. 443, 472 A.2d 18 (1984), upon which the defendant relies, does not persuade us otherwise. In Lupien the marriage of the parties had been dissolved......
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...had been living together, cohabitation did not begin until cohabitator began to contribute financial support); Lupien v. Lupien , 192 Conn. 443, 444–45, 472 A.2d 18 (1984) (extensive discussion of facts showing cohabitator's financial contributions to alimony recipient's household); Nation–......