Carolyn Geiger v. Arthur G. Geiger (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On August 19, 2009 after trial the Court entered orders, among other things, that the defendant pay alimony in the amount of $80,000 per year effective May 8, 2009.   The trial court's decision made no provision for any set-offs or deductions for expenses paid pendente lite or otherwise.

While there has been dispute as to the amount of alimony due, the defendant by his own admission in his memo of February 23, 2010 deletes any reference to payment for the month of July 2009.   Since this discrepancy has been pointed out to the defendant the sum of $6,667.00 shall be paid forthwith and the Court will give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on the issue of willfulness and find the defendant not in willful contempt on this claim.

The issue of the Court awarded financial accounts is of a different tenor.   At the time of trial the defendant submitted an affidavit dated April 28, 2010 and asserted in his claims for relief that there was more money available for distribution than was actually available.   Prior to trial and before the Court's disposition the defendant continued to reduce and dissipate the financial assets that he had listed on his April 28, 2010 financial affidavit.   Obviously the amounts available for distribution between the parties pursuant to the judgment of the Court were substantially depleted.   The Court had a right to rely on the defendant's affidavit submitted at the time of trial.   It is ordered that the defendant pay to the plaintiff one-half of the $46,273.00, or $23,136.00, with a credit to him for any sums already advanced on this Chase account # xxx-880.

In addition to the above claims, the defendant asserts he had a right to deduct pendente lite payments and pay them toward a mortgage in his name for a property in Florida owned exclusively by him.   There is nothing in the Court's decision that allows for any offset of payments for real estate ordered transferred to the plaintiff as part of its judgment.   Nowhere in the record is there any legal basis for the authorization to deduct from alimony any expense he paid for the dogs' pendente lite veterinarian expense.   The Court finds that taking said expense without prior approval of the Court is willful.   The Court is not unaware of the question of defendant's credibility addressed by Judge Marano.

Because the defendant made voluntary payments prior to trial and prior to the rendition of judgment such payments cannot be credited against court ordered payments.  Goold v. Goold, 11 Conn.App. 268 (1997).   There are no unique or compelling circumstances that require any equitable relief.   Guss v. Guss, Conn.App. 356, 363 (1984).   In the present case, the Court finds that the defendant failed to obtain the consent of the plaintiff for any type of alternate payment.

In addition the Chase account shortfall, the defendant was to pay the plaintiff 60% of the Bank of America joint checking account xx-570.   As of April 28, 2009 there was $9,798.00 in the account.   Since she was paid only $3,541.00, there is a difference of $2,338 as of the date of judgment.

The Court also ordered that the plaintiff receive 50% of the Wachovia checking account and listed in the defendant's affidavit as having a $4,023.00 balance but the balance was actually $0.00.   Thus, $2,011.50 is due to the plaintiff.   This account was in fact closed one month before the defendant submitted his affidavit.

It is ordered that the defendant appear in Court on July 22, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. for a contempt proceeding.   In order to purge himself, he shall prior to that time pay the following:

A. Alimony arrearage $6,667.00

B. J.P. Morgan Chase $23,136.00

C. Bank of America $2,338.00

D. Wachovia $2,011.50

He shall also produce proof of life insurance in the amount of $500,000.00.   The parties shall be prepared to argue attorney fees and costs at that time.

OWENS, J.T.R.

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