Valentine v. Valentine
Decision Date | 05 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 37286.,37286. |
Citation | 164 Conn.App. 354,141 A.3d 884 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Nora Lynne VALENTINE v. Joel Robert VALENTINE. |
John F. Morris, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Joel R. Valentine, self-represented, the appellee (defendant).
KELLER, MULLINS and LAVERY, Js.
The plaintiff, Nora Valentine, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following proceedings that occurred in accordance with a remand order of this court, in which it entered financial orders in the parties' dissolution action. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred: (1) in fashioning its orders regarding the ownership, refinance, and sale of the marital home; (2) in basing its alimony and child support orders on gross, rather than net income; and (3) in retroactively modifying prior court orders for mortgage arrearages and fines for noncompliance with discovery by the defendant, Joel Valentine. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, in part, with respect to the plaintiff's third claim relative to fines that possibly had accumulated for the defendant's noncompliance with discovery. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The parties to this matter were married on July 8, 1990, in Malibu, California. They had two children during their marriage, born on December 21, 1995, and on May 3, 2003. The parties originally tried the issues before the court, Gould, J., and a judgment dissolving their marriage entered on May 20, 2013.1 This court reversed Judge Gould's judgment in 2014, and remanded this matter for a new trial on all financial issues. Valentine v. Valentine, 149 Conn.App. 799, 808, 90 A.3d 300 (2014).
On remand, the court, Pinkus, J., conducted a trial on all financial issues over the course of four days, beginning on September 9, 2014, and concluding on September 16, 2014. In its memorandum of decision of September 26, 2014, the court set forth the following findings of fact. “The parties resided in California from the time of the marriage until 2004. The plaintiff was a screen writer with limited success.2 The defendant was a sound effects designer. In addition, the parties attempted to develop websites and online content. These ventures were not very profitable. The parties relied primarily on the defendant's income. All of their earnings were either deposited into their joint accounts or a corporate account, to which they both had access.
* * *
(Footnote added.)
The court issued new financial orders after indicating that it had considered the testimony and exhibits presented at trial, the statutory criteria pertaining to property division and awards of alimony and child support as expressed in General Statutes §§ 46b–81, 46b–82, and 46b–84, as well as other pertinent statutes, including the child support and arrearage guidelines regulations.
The court ordered the defendant to pay $300 per week in child support for the parties' two children to the plaintiff, retroactive to May 20, 2013, in accordance with the child support guidelines. This amount was to be adjusted to $215 per week effective June 27, 2014, when the defendant was obligated to pay child support for only one child. The court found that the defendant had “an arrearage for pendente lite support in the amount of $928, which shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week.” The court also ordered that “[f]rom the date of judgment, the parties shall be equally responsible for the minor children's extracurricular activities, provided that they are agreed to in advance by the parties in writing, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld ... [but that n]either shall be responsible for more than $1250 per year [for such] expenses.” The court ordered that the defendant would “be responsible for the children's health insurance, for so long as they are eligible, provided it is available to him through his employer at reasonable expense.” Further, the court ordered that “[u]nreimbursed medical and dental expenses for the minor children shall be paid 46 percent by the plaintiff and 54 percent by the defendant.” The court retained “jurisdiction for educational support of the party's children pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–56c,” but it did not enter a current order because there was no evidence that the requirements of § 46b–56c (d) and (e) had been met.
With respect to the marital home, the plaintiff was awarded all right, title and interest in that property. She was ordered to be solely responsible for the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and all other expenses related to the home. She also was ordered to “attempt to remove the defendant from any obligation due on the mortgage on at least an annual basis, and if not accomplished within eight years of the date of [the] judgment, [she would be ordered] to immediately place the property for sale.” Further, the court ordered that “[a]ny proceeds realized from [such a] sale shall belong to the plaintiff.”
The defendant was ordered to pay $250 per week in alimony to the plaintiff, retroactive to May 20, 2013.3 This alimony obligation is modifiable and will terminate only upon the death of either party, the remarriage of the plaintiff, or, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–86 (b), cohabitation by the plaintiff. The defendant also was ordered to “maintain whatever life insurance he [had] available through his employer, naming the plaintiff as beneficiary, so long as he [had] an alimony or child support obligation to her.”
The court allowed the plaintiff to “retain any interests she may have to real property transferred to her by her mother” and her interest in a pending personal injury claim. She also was allowed to retain two of the parties' three cars, as well as “any interest she has in the 1958 Corvette.”
The defendant was allowed to retain his retirement account and one of the parties' three cars, a Ford Focus. The parties were allowed to retain their respective bank accounts, intellectual property, and personal belongings in their possession without any claim by the other. Each party was ordered to be responsible for debts listed on their respective financial affidavits and their own attorneys' fees. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
We first note the relevant and well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Keenan v. Casillo, 149 Conn.App. 642, 644–45, 89 A.3d 912, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 910, 93 A.3d 594 (2014). “In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Daniel B.
-
Fronsaglia v. Fronsaglia
...gross income where court had ample evidence "from which it could have determined the defendant's net income"); Valentine v. Valentine , 164 Conn. App. 354, 368–69, 141 A.3d 884 (trial court did not improperly base its decision on defendant's gross income because financial affidavits submitt......
-
Becue v. Becue, AC 38994
...presumption ... in favor of the correctness of [the trial court's] action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Valentine v. Valentine , 164 Conn. App. 354, 369, 141 A.3d 884, cert. denied, 321 Conn. 917, 136 A.3d 1275 (2016).Here, the defendant argues that "the court's findings ... as to t......
-
Ray v. Ray
...and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Valentine v. Valentine, 164 Conn. App. 354, 361, 141 A.3d 884, cert. denied, 321 Conn. 917, 136 A.3d 1275 (2016).In Fox v. Fox, 152 Conn. App. 611, 619 n.3, 99 A.3d 1206, cert. den......