Victoria E. Clark v. Thomas B. Clark (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The parties return to court postjudgment to address a Motion for Modification of unallocated alimony and child support and for various motions for contempt.

There has been a substantial change in circumstances in that the defendant/husband's income has decreased from the time of the judgment.   Pursuant to the cumbersome separation agreement entered into by the parties, various definitions and acronyms have been devised and or created and defined within said document.   In that this agreement was incorporated by reference and therefore is part of the judgment its terms and definitions, are referenced to herein.

The court finds that the defendant's present PTCE income is approximately one-half of that income at the time of the dissolution of marriage.   Therefore, the unallocated alimony and child support order to be paid to the plaintiff/wife is modified to $15,000 per month retroactive to January 1, 2009 and through June 29, 2010 (child's graduation from high school) and thereafter she shall receive 40% of the defendant-husband's PTCE income.

The plaintiff was to receive, pursuant to the judgment, 40% of the defendant's bonus/forgivable loan.   The defendant had no choice but to take the entire bonus/forgivable loan in a lump sum.   The defendant/husband elected not to pay the plaintiff 40% of that net amount, but rather to pay his bills/debts.   Therefore, this order is entered that the monthly principal amount of said bonus/forgivable loan is to be paid equally over eight-four months to the plaintiff in the sum of $5,289.60.   This monthly payment is retroactive to the initial payment received by the defendant on February 1, 2009.   The defendant chose to pay his debts in priority over the 40% due the plaintiff.   The discussions/agreements over the interest charged and forgiven and about the amortization of said amount are illusory and are not factors in this order.

There is additional unallocated alimony/support due from the defendant to the plaintiff for the months of November and December 2, 2008.   Pursuant to the Judgment 40% of the PTCE earnings of the defendant above $50,000 a month were to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant.   Apportioning the defendant's PTCE income monthly the plaintiff should have received an additional $6,666.00 total for those two months.   The defendant shall pay that $6,666 or to the plaintiff by July 15, 2010.

While there were violations of court orders by both the parties the court does not find a wilful contempt by either the plaintiff or the defendant.   The court finds that the parties have engaged in the pursuit of petty positions regarding “trade-offs” and refunds to transfer or pay the timely various obligation, to each other.   It is indiscernible to determine which action or inaction by one party stimulated the next action or inaction by the other party.

MALONE, J.

Malone, John P., J.T.R.