Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, No. 26021.
Decision Date | 30 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 26021. |
Citation | 897 A.2d 700,95 Conn.App. 625 |
Parties | George SABROWSKI v. Beverly R. SABROWSKI. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Martin M. Rutchik, Norwich, with whom, on the brief, was Sharon Lee Gibbs, for the appellant (defendant).
Eric W. Callahan, with whom, on the brief, was Jeffrey W. Hill, New London, for the appellee (plaintiff).
SCHALLER, GRUENDEL and STOUGHTON, Js.
The defendant, Beverly R. Sabrowski, appeals from the judgment of the trial court modifying the award of alimony and medical expenses payable to her by the plaintiff, George Sabrowski. The defendant claims that the court improperly found that the plaintiff met his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances.1 We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our decision. The marriage of the parties was dissolved by the court pursuant to a stipulated judgment on May 13, 1999. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant alimony in the amount of $550 per week, terminating when the defendant either reached age sixty-two, became eligible for medicare benefits, remarried or died. In addition, the plaintiff was ordered, as additional alimony, to maintain medical and dental coverage for the defendant and to pay 50 percent of her unreimbursed medical and dental expenses as long as he had a continuing obligation to pay alimony.
On July 23, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify alimony, stating that "[a]t the time of these orders, the [p]laintiff expected two sources of income: income from his principal place of employment as well as rental income that the business he owned would be paying to him," and alleging a substantial change in circumstances due to a business downturn and the resultant loss of the rental income. At the October 21, 2004 hearing on his motion, the plaintiff testified about his claims of a substantial change in his income. He testified that at the time of the hearing and for the prior ten years, he had been paying himself a salary of $600 per week as the sole officer of the funeral business he owned. He further testified that at the time of the divorce, he had been receiving an additional $24,000 per year in income derived from rent his funeral business paid to him as the owner of the building in which it operated, but that at the time of the modification hearing, that rent was no longer paid because the business had suffered a loss in revenue.
Following the hearing, the court granted the motion to modify, ruling as follows: 2 In finding a substantial change in circumstances, the court evidently credited the testimony of the plaintiff at the modification hearing that his present income was $600 per week and that it was $24,000 per year less than that at the time of the divorce. This appeal followed.
Before addressing the merits of the defendant's claim, we first set forth the legal principles governing our resolution thereof. The party seeking a modification of alimony pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86(a)3 has the burden of demonstrating that a substantial change in the circumstances of either party has occurred. Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729-734, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chyung v. Chyung, 86 Conn.App. 665, 667-68, 862 A.2d 374 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 904, 868 A.2d 744 (2005). A thorough review of the record convinces us that a mistake has been made in the present case.
The following additional facts and procedural history are central to our conclusion. At the time the marriage of the parties was dissolved pursuant to a stipulated judgment, the plaintiff filed a financial affidavit with the court. That affidavit, sworn to by the defendant on April 20, 1999, stated that his weekly income from his principal employment was $600 per week and did not disclose that he had any other income, including the $24,000 per year that he testified at the modification hearing he had been receiving at the time of the dissolution.4
"Our Practice Book has long required that at the time a dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment action is claimed for a hearing, the moving party shall file a sworn statement . . . of current income, expenses, assets and liabilities, and pertinent records of employment, gross earnings, gross wages and all other income . . . .
(Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sabrowski v. Sabrowski
...order modifying the award of alimony and medical expenses payable to the defendant, Beverly R. Sabrowski. Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 95 Conn.App. 625, 626, 631, 897 A.2d 700 (2006). The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly decided this case the basis of an issue that never had ......
-
Sgandurra v. DeFillipo, No. FST FA 00 0180892 (Conn. Super. 7/7/2006)
...contrary to the basic principle stated in Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 595 A.2d 1377 (1991), cited by Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 95 Conn.App. 625 (2006) at page 630. A rough estimate of the value of the said pension at the time of the dissolution was approximately $200,000. It appe......
-
Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 17738.
...James H. Lee, Fairfield, in opposition. The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 95 Conn.App. 625, 897 A.2d 700 (2006), is granted, limited to the following "Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court's finding that the plaintiff had met h......
-
Developments in Connecticut Family Law: 2006
...97 Conn. App. 286, 904 A.2d 259, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 932, 909 A.2d 957 (2006). 15. Id. at 290. 16. Id. 17. Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 95 Conn. App. 625, 897 A.2d 700 (2006). 18. This holding was eventually overruled by the Supreme Court on the solely procedural ground that the basis for th......