Yuliya Chernyak v. Eugene Feldman (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Yulia Chernyak, brought this action for dissolution of marriage against the defendant, Eugene Feldman, on June 9, 2009.   The defendant moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b-44 and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, as codified as Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-115 et seq.   The defendant claims that neither party, nor the minor child issue of the marriage, is a resident of Connecticut.

Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b-44 and 46b-46 establishes the foundation for the court's exercise of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiff claims that both parties are residents of Connecticut.   The parties own a home at 24 Maple Ridge Road, Trumbull, Connecticut.   The parties filed joint federal and Connecticut 2009 tax returns that indicated their legal residence was Connecticut.   The defendant, who was employed in New York, filed a Nonresident tax return in the state of New York. Further, the defendant maintained a checking account in Connecticut.   The defendant also listed Connecticut as his address for a life insurance policy and a health insurance policy.   The plaintiff testified that she has been and remains a resident of Connecticut.

The defendant cites the Uniform Custody and Enforcement Act, C.G.S. § 46b-115k, in support of his argument that the court lacks jurisdiction.  C.G.S. § 46b-115k provides that if this state was the home of the child within six months of commencement of a child custody proceeding, the child is absent from the state, and a parent or a person acting as a parent continues to reside in this state, the court has the requisite jurisdiction.   In the present case, the child was absent from the state and her mother, the plaintiff, continued to reside in Connecticut within six months prior to this action commencing.

The court has subject matter jurisdiction.   The defendant asserts his non-residency only as a factual predicate for his argument.   The defendant cites no authority to suggest that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and fails to meet the necessary burden of proof required for a motion to dismiss.   Further, the facts show that the court has personal jurisdiction over both parties.   Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

OWENS, J.T.R.

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