Zern v. Zern
| Decision Date | 26 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 5959,5959 |
| Citation | 544 A.2d 244,15 Conn.App. 292 |
| Parties | Howard R. ZERN v. Anne M. ZERN. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
David A. Golas, Manchester, for appellant (defendant).
Dennis G. Hersh, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and DALY and EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, JJ.
The defendant appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, challenging the financial orders of the trial court. The defendant claims that the trial court erred (1) in failing to consider the relevant statutory criteria in fashioning its awards of alimony, child support, and the division of the parties' assets, and (2) in valuing the parties' assets as of the date of the parties' separation rather than as of the date of dissolution. We find error in part.
The plaintiff and the defendant were married on March 17, 1979, and one child was born of the marriage on January 12, 1981. Following difficulties in their relationship, the parties were separated in August of 1984 and remained so until the judgment of dissolution on March 9, 1987. The marital residence was sold in December of 1984 and the proceeds from the sale were placed in an escrow account pending the dissolution action, which was brought by the plaintiff in July of 1985. On December 5, 1985, pursuant to an agreement of the parties, pendente lite orders were entered providing for joint custody of the child and unallocated alimony and child support in the amount of $100 per week to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The record reveals that the plaintiff, age forty, is a college graduate with credit toward a masters degree. He is vice-president and director of sales for a bank, earning an annual salary of $60,000, as well as an annual bonus which in 1986 was $7000. The plaintiff also participated in a thrift plan with his employer which was valued at $4364 at the time of the parties' separation, and which was valued at $13,017 at the time of trial. The defendant, age thirty-seven, a high school graduate with one year of college credit, is employed by the same bank as a customer service officer earning $30,000 annually. The defendant has worked continuously for the bank for seventeen and one half years save for a period of approximately one year following the birth of the parties' child and another brief period not here relevant. The parties also jointly own property in New Hampshire, purchased in 1982, which property was valued at $55,000 by the plaintiff and $67,000 by the defendant in their financial affidavits submitted to the court at the time of dissolution. The plaintiff also submitted to the court an appraisal made shortly after the parties' separation which valued the property at $34,500. The plaintiff testified that pursuant to settlement negotiations following the parties' separation, the defendant originally agreed that the plaintiff would keep the New Hampshire property. Such negotiations were unsuccessful, however, and a final agreement was never reached. It was undisputed that all expenses relating to the New Hampshire property following the separation of the parties were paid by the plaintiff.
On March 9, 1987, the trial court, ruling from the bench, granted the dissolution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and awarded the parties joint custody of the child. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $75 per week child support, to maintain medical insurance for the child and to pay one half of the child's private school expenses and unreimbursed medical expenses. The court further ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant alimony of one dollar per year for five years. The purpose of the award of alimony was to provide for the contingency of the defendant being ill and unable to work during that time period. The court made the following orders regarding the division of the parties' assets: (1) the plaintiff was directed to pay the defendant one half of the value of his thrift plan as it was valued at the time of the parties' separation; (2) the plaintiff was directed to pay the defendant one half of the equity value of the New Hampshire property as of the time of the separation of the parties, namely, $7250; (3) the defendant was ordered to convey her interest in the New Hampshire property to the plaintiff; (4) the proceeds held in escrow from the sale of the marital residence, $9000, along with accrued interest, was to be divided equally between the parties; and (5) each party was liable for his or her own debts and each would retain his or her own pension, free and clear of any claim of the other party. The court also awarded the defendant $2000 in attorney's fees.
The defendant moved for articulation of the basis for the trial court's financial orders and valuation of the parties' assets as of the date of the parties' separation. The trial court denied the motion, but did note in its denial that the date of the separation of the parties was the appropriate date for valuation of the marital assets since the parties had "nothing further to do with each other" following the separation.
We first address the defendant's claim that the trial court failed to consider the relevant statutory criteria when fashioning its awards of alimony, child support, and division of the parties' assets. See General Statutes §§ 46b-81, 46b-82, and 46b-84. "The amount of alimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wendt v. Wendt
...parties' current financial circumstances to the extent reasonably possible." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn. App. 292, 296, 544 A.2d 244 (1988); see also General Statutes § The plaintiffs claim fails because the court did exactly what § 46b-81 and interpreting cas......
-
Maturo v. Maturo
...support order but upholding all remaining financial orders), cert. denied, 211 Conn. 809, 559 A.2d 1142 (1989); Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn.App. 292, 296-97, 544 A.2d 244 (1988) (reversing order on division of assets but upholding alimony and child support We conclude that the financial orders re......
-
Pirog v. James
... ... trial court in determining the division of property incident ... to a dissolution of marriage action." Zern v ... Zern , 15 Conn.App. 292, 296, 544 A.2d 244 (1988) ... General ... Statutes § 46b-82 governs alimony awards in ... ...
-
Aley v. Aley
...support order while upholding all remaining financial orders), cert. denied, 211 Conn. 809, 559 A.2d 1142 (1989); Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn.App. 292, 297, 544 A.2d 244 (1988) (reversing judgment only as to support orders, holding that "court's division of the parties' assets was distinct and, o......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...1991). Arkansas: Askins v. Askins, 288 Ark. 333, 704 S.W.2d 632 (1986). California: Cal. Civ. Code § 4800. Connecticut: Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn. App. 292, 544 A.2d 244 (1988). Delaware: Walter W.B. v. Elizabeth P.B., 462 A.2d 414 (Del. 1983). Iowa: Locke v. Locke, 246 N.W.2d 246 (Iowa 1976). ......
-
Survey of 1989 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...1151 (1989). 40. Id. at 537. 41. Cuneo v. Cuneo, 12 Conn. App. 702, 709, 533 A.2d 1226 (1987). The Court did not cite Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn. App. 292, 544 A.2d 244 (1988), which held that the trial court must value assets as of the date of the dissolution, not the date of the parties' separ......
-
Appeals in Marital Dissolution Actions: Reconstructing the "mosaic"
...dissolution cases, 2 Conn. App. at 424, apparently no longer prevents it from being applied to all dissolution cases. See Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn. App. 292, 297 (1988) (reversing and remanding for a new hearing on property division but leaving alimony and child support orders undisturbed beca......
-
Survey of 1990 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...of the dissolution decree not the date of separation. See, O'Neill v. O'Neill, 13 Conn. App. 300, 538 A.2d 978 (1988); Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn. App. 292, 298, 544 A.2d 244 (1988). 20. 20 Conn. App. 551, 588 A.2d 1044 (1990). 21. The Appellate Court's opinion does not state the value of the ho......