Kathleen Budrawich v. Edward Budrawich (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This case has an extensive history of contention due to the parties' inability to interact.   It is before this court after intensive litigation in Middletown as well as a subsequent arbitration hearing.   A dissolution of marriage judgment was entered on November 28, 2006 and a corrected Arbitration Decision and Award was entered on May 30, 2007.

Modification of Child Support

The plaintiff has moved for modification of child support.   The parties entered into an agreement regarding child support and custody dated June 9, 2006 approved by

At the time of the entry of the June 9, 2006 agreement the parties' salaries were almost the same.   Currently defendant is earning a gross salary of $143,000 and in addition there was received in February of 2009 a bonus for $35,789.   The bonus is conspicuously missing from his affidavit.   Defendant claims that the bonus was not required to be reflected because it was not earned within the 13 weeks prior to the preparation of his affidavit.   This argument strains credibility and prevents the court from getting the full range of defendant's income.   Based on an examination of the parties' affidavits as well as the evidence presented to the court there is a substantial change in circumstances and defendant's claim that his bonus should not be considered by the court is at best specious.

Plaintiff's income has substantially decreased to $110,000 per year and defendant's income has increased to $178,000 per year since the entry of the June 9, 2006 order.   At this time defendant's income is $68,000 greater than plaintiff's.   It should be noted that the original order relating to child support has never been modified so the operative time to consider the motion for modification relates back to the original order of June 9, 2006.

Motion for Contempt Re QDRO

With respect to defendant's motion for contempt dated August 18, 2009 the language of the court's judgment is very clear.   Despite the defendant's claims that there was no effort to divide the QDRO until April 2009 this is belied by the record.  (See Exh. 10 and 11.)   In a dissolution action marital property is valued as of the date of dissolution.  Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn.App. 656, 661 (2000).   Obviously if the parties intended otherwise it would have been spelled out.  Kremnitzer v. Kremnitzer, 81 Conn.App. 135 (2004) makes clear that in the absence of any exceptional circumstances the date of dissolution is the proper time to determine the value of the parties' estate upon which to base the division of assets.   To value the assets as they are currently would be an impermissible modification of property division.

In plaintiff's motion for contempt concerning payment for activities dated August 18, 2008, the plaintiff seeks a finding of contempt because the defendant failed to pay expenses and activity fees for the children.   The parties' agreement specifically requires the parties to exchange proof of payment of expenses on the first day of the month following the payment of medical expenses and activities.   The plaintiff candidly admits that she did not submit to the defendant these expenses in a timely fashion.   She can hardly seek a contempt citation if she is responsible for the non-compliance.   The motion for contempt is denied but the plaintiff is admonished to be prompt in her presentation of proof of payment of expenses.

With respect to defendant's motion for contempt dated July 28, 2009, he was to have first choice of any item located in the garage or cellar and plaintiff was to have her choice of the remaining items which means everything after his one selection if she wanted the balance.   Defendant shall select the one item if he has never made a selection and it shall be his absolutely.   If that item has been removed or sold by the plaintiff she shall recompense him for its value.

With respect to plaintiff's list of children's medical expenses and activities that she seeks reimbursement for as well as non-reimburse expenses of the defendant the court, based on the defendant's chart and plaintiff's response is not able to fashion an order.

The plaintiff and defendant shall contact the Family Relations Office so that it may aid the court in assessing the responsibility.

On the issue of plaintiff's claim for attorney fees, after the resolution of the claims for reimbursement of expenses is resolved, the plaintiff may re-claim said motion and the court shall hear evidence or examine plaintiff's affidavit.

OWENS, J.T.R.

Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.