Markarian v. Markarian
| Decision Date | 22 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 2348,2348 |
| Citation | 2 Conn.App. 14,475 A.2d 337 |
| Parties | Araxie MARKARIAN v. Herache MARKARIAN. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Joseph A. O'Brien, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Gerald A. Roisman, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before DANNEHY, C.P.J., and TESTO and DUPONT, JJ.
The plaintiff appealed 1 from the judgment in an action for dissolution of a marriage. No objections are made to the dissolution of the marriage or to the disposition concerning the parties' property. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the award of periodic alimony is inadequate both in amount and duration.
The plaintiff and the defendant were married in 1947. Dissolution proceedings were instituted in 1981 and, in 1982, the matter was heard by a state referee. After finding that the marriage between the parties had broken down and allocating their property, the referee ordered the defendant to pay $200 a week in alimony to the plaintiff for a period of two years, nonmodifiable for any reason.
At the time of trial, the plaintiff was fifty-seven years old and the defendant was fifty-eight. The parties had two adult children. During most of the marriage the plaintiff was a homemaker. From 1968 to 1972 she worked part time in a school cafeteria. She had no special skill, training or education, and is presently unemployed. She recently underwent surgery. In 1971, the defendant organized and incorporated World of Nutrition, Inc., and was its only shareholder. The plaintiff played an active role in the success of this business until she was discharged by the defendant in 1981. The plaintiff presented expert testimony that the corporation has a fair market value between $240,000 and $300,000. The defendant offered no evidence with respect to the fair market value of the corporation. The plaintiff was awarded no interest in the corporation. The defendant continues to be employed by World of Nutrition, Inc., at a weekly salary of $656.49. In addition to his salary, the defendant has $37,868.44 invested in the corporation's profit-sharing fund. He also has savings bonds, money market certificates and life insurance, the total value of which he estimated to be $4275. During 1980, the defendant invested $25,000, in a racing dog syndicate from which he realized income of $2000 in 1982. There is indication that he will derive additional income from this investment in the future.
Rehabilitative or time limited alimony is not new to Connecticut law. McCann v. McCann, 191 Conn. 447, 464 A.2d 825 (1983); Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232, 449 A.2d 151 (1982); Scoville v. Scoville, 179 Conn. 277, 426 A.2d 271 (1979). Underlying the concept of time limited alimony is the sound policy that such awards may provide an incentive for the spouse receiving support to use diligence in procuring training or skills necessary to attain self-sufficiency. Although each case must be decided on its own facts, the relevant factors for determining whether to award time limited or permanent alimony are listed in General Statutes § 46b-82.
In order for this court to carry out its review of a trial court's decision in a case of this nature, there must be some indication in the record as to the basis of that decision. At a minimum, the record should indicate that the trial court considered relevant statutory factors in making an alimony award containing an automatic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neill v. O'Neill
...and amount of rehabilitative alimony should attempt to achieve the purpose for which it was designed. Markarian v. Markarian, 2 Conn.App. 14, 16, 475 A.2d 337 (1984) (per curiam). In this case, the purpose of the rehabilitative alimony was to allow the plaintiff to finish her nursing traini......
-
Farrell-Williams v. Williams, 26927.
...and the amount and sources of their income. The record, thus, supports the order for time limited alimony. See Markarian v. Markarian, 2 Conn.App. 14, 16, 475 A.2d 337 (1984) (record must contain some indication as to reasoning of court in making alimony award of limited ...
- Juvenile Appeal (1984-5), In re
-
Gallant v. Esposito
...v. Ippolito, 28 Conn.App. 745, 751, 612 A.2d 131, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 905, 615 A.2d 1047 (1992), citing Markarian v. Markarian, 2 Conn.App. 14, 17 n. 2, 475 A.2d 337 (1984); Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn.App. 292, 295, 544 A.2d 244 (1988). In the present case, the trial court failed to set fort......
-
1995 and 1996 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...held: *The trial court does not have to make a detailed finding justifying its award of time limited alimony. Sw Markarian v. Markarian, 2 Conn. App. 14, 17 n.2, 475 A.2d 337 (1984). Although a specific finding for an award of time limited alimony is not required, the record must indicate t......
-
Survey of 1992 Developments in Connecticut Law
...v. Roach, 20 Conn A 500 568 A.2d 1037 (1990); Deteves v. Deteves, 2 Conn. App. 590,481 A.2d 92 44 Mikarian v. Markarian, 26 Conn. App. 14,475 A.2d 337 50. Ippolito at 752. The Court, however, also suggests that self-sufficiency may have a different connotation: "There is no evidence in the ......
-
Survey of 1990 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...that the trial court miscalculated the equity in the home. 13. Id. at 505 (citations omitted). The Court cited Markarian v. Markarian, 2 Conn. App. 14, 16, 475 A.2d 337 14. Id. at 506. 15. Compare, McPhee v. McPhee, Conn. (1981), for a case where actual errors couled with illogic in the cou......
-
Survey of 1994 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...alimony awards was, to some extent, _pioneered' by Chief judge DuPont. She was on the anels that decided Markarian v. Markarian, 2 Conn. App. 14 and Deteves v. Deteves, 2 Conn. App. 590 (1984). Judge DuPont did not, however, participate in Ippolito v. Ippolito, 28 Conn. App. 745 (1992) or i......