Wolk v. Wolk
| Citation | 464 A.2d 780,191 Conn. 328 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 06 September 1983 |
| Parties | Gloria L. WOLK v. Donald WOLK. |
Gloria L. Wolk, pro se.
Michael A. Meyers, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).
Before PETERS, PARSKEY, SHEA, DALY and HENNESSY, JJ.
This is an appeal from court orders ancillary to the dissolution of a marriage. The plaintiff, Gloria L. Wolk, claims that the court made errors in its judgment in that: (1) it ordered the plaintiff to sign the 1980 joint tax return of the parties; (2) it assigned fault to the plaintiff for the breakdown of the marriage; (3) it failed to give reasons for final financial orders differing from pendente lite orders; (4) it concluded that the plaintiff made no substantial contribution to the defendant's professional achievements or to the accumulation of marital assets; (5) it denied the plaintiff the family home, a share of the defendant's pension and a share of the defendant's income from his private practice; (6) it found certain issues and testimony immaterial; (7) it failed to consider the best interests of the children in making its awards; and (8) it denied the plaintiff's request for counsel fees.
The plaintiff claims that the court erred in ordering her to sign the 1980 joint income tax return of the parties. The plaintiff admits that she signed the form before the court made its order and that it was submitted to the court as an exhibit by agreement of the parties. She cannot now claim on appeal that the court erred in ordering what she agreed to do.
The plaintiff claims that the court erred in holding her at fault for the marital breakdown by concluding that she was emotionally unstable without the benefit of expert testimony. The court was, however, entitled to rely on the nonexpert testimony of the defendant husband to find that there were "unpredictable emotional twists and turns" on the part of the plaintiff which contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. Nonexpert testimony of this nature is admissible providing it is reliable and the person testifying had an opportunity to observe the events testified to. State v. McGinnis, 158 Conn. 124, 130-31, 256 A.2d 241 (1969); Atwood v. Atwood, 84 Conn. 169, 172-74, 79 A. 59 (1911). The determination by the court was not one of such a medical or technical character as to require expert testimony. The court had an opportunity to view the witnesses and weigh the testimony presented. Unless there were no facts upon which the court could base its finding, we as an appellate body cannot retry the case or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232, 234, 449 A.2d 151 (1982). A review of the transcript indicates that there were facts presented which would allow the trial court to conclude as it did.
The claim that the court erroneously disturbed alimony pendente lite orders without a clear basis for doing so appears to misunderstand the difference between temporary orders prior to the dissolution of a marriage and final orders at the time of the dissolution of a marriage. The purpose of an award of alimony and support pendente lite "is to provide for the wife and the dependent children while they are living apart from her husband pending a determination of the issues in the case." Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 169 Conn. 147, 151, 362 A.2d 889 (1975). The final orders of alimony and support granted at the time of the dissolution necessarily address the long term conditions under which the reorganization of the family is to take place and include distribution of assets such as the family home and other significant assets. Since the purposes of pendente lite awards and final orders are different there is no requirement that the court give any reason for changing the pendente lite orders.
The next several issues presented by the plaintiff challenge the financial awards by the court. The plaintiff claims that the court erroneously decided that she had not made a substantial contribution to the defendant's professional achievements or to the accumulation of marital assets and as a result denied her the family home and a portion of the defendant's pension and income from his private practice. She challenges the court's order that the house be sold if she cohabits with an unrelated male, and its ruling allowing the defendant to testify to the value of her personal jewelry and the court's award of personalty.
The parties, married for twenty-two years, are in relatively good health and well educated. The husband is in his late forties, a tenured professor at a university and a licensed clinical psychologist. She is in her early forties, and is pursuing a masters degree in social work. There are two minor children. The court found that the plaintiff greatly helped the defendant in his academic achievements and worked jointly to further the marriage and the family welfare so that all assets and earnings went to accomplish those aims. These findings are not consistent with the plaintiff's claims that the court decided that she had not made a substantial contribution to the defendant's professional achievements.
The court awarded the plaintiff a tenancy in common interest in the family home and exclusive use of it until she remarried, died, cohabitated with an unrelated male or until the youngest child reached the age of majority. Upon the happening of any of these events, the home is to be sold and the net proceeds are to be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff's claim that this order deprives her of the family home is not entirely true. The court has shaped its orders to give to the plaintiff and the children the protection and stability which normally comes with the possession of the family home. The fact that the plaintiff is responsible for the maintenance of the home and payments for the mortgage, insurance and taxes on the home, which will result in a benefit to the defendant when the house is sold, is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the court. The defendant is being deprived of a substantial financial asset for many years. The plaintiff and children have the use of the asset and possibly could earn additional income from renting a portion of it. In placing a condition upon the plaintiff that she not cohabit with an unrelated male lest the house be sold, the court did not commit error. Cohabitation is a dwelling together of man and woman in the same place in the manner of husband and wife. 2 Am.Jur.2d, Adultery and Fornication § 1. If the plaintiff cohabitated instead of marrying she could avoid sharing the largest financial asset of the family with the defendant. The court, acting to fulfill its responsibilities pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86(b), could fashion orders to protect the interests of both parties in their largest financial asset. The shape of the orders herein, in light of all the circumstances, cannot be said to be an abuse of the court's discretion.
The plaintiff claims the court erred in allowing the defendant to testify as to the value of the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spigarolo, 13220
...another's mental or emotional state if that opinion is reliable and based on the witness's observations. See, e.g., Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 330, 464 A.2d 780 (1983) (husband's opinion on wife's emotional instability); State v. Palozie, 165 Conn. 288, 298-99, 334 A.2d 468 (1973) (mother......
-
State v. Maurice M.
...court reasonably could have found that the back door was accessible to the two year old child. See, e.g., [303 Conn. 64] Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 330, 464 A.2d 780 (1983) (“[u]nless there were no facts [on] which the [trial] court could base its finding, we as an appellate body cannot r......
-
Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.
...Transportation, 192 Conn. 377, 379, 471 A.2d 958 (1984); or to ask the trial judge to rule on an overlooked matter. Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 335 n. 1, 464 A.2d 780 (1983). Seventh BRT has not moved for an articulation of the trial court's ruling regarding the unity of interest claim. We......
-
Wadlow v. Wadlow
...We merely note in passing that the problem has not received uniform treatment in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 464 A.2d 780 (Sup.Ct.1983); Leftwich v. Leftwich, 442 A.2d 139 (D.C.App.1982); In re Marriage of Butler, 346 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa Ct.App.1984); Frasse v. ......