Thomas Trahan v. Dorothy Trahan (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On March 19, 2010 the plaintiff filed a Post-Judgment Motion to Modify Alimony (# 193).   The motion was heard on July 8, 2010, when the plaintiff appeared as a self-represented party and the defendant appeared through counsel.   The plaintiff's motion seeks a decrease in his alimony payments claiming the company he co-owned and operated had filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and he had no income from any other source.

The following information is contained in the file.   The parties were married in South Windsor, Connecticut on September 23, 1983.   The marriage was dissolved by this court on November 8, 2001, after a protracted contested trial.   A Judgment file was signed by counsel for the parties and the court, and filed on February 14, 2002.   The judgment contained three orders relevant to the plaintiff's instant motion.   They are as follows:

1.  That the plaintiff retained all his right, title and interest in Steel Fab, Mitchell Drive Associates and any other entities either legally or equitably in which he has an interest (emphasis added) and which he had disclosed.

2. That the plaintiff pay the defendant weekly periodic alimony of $1,000 for one year, $750 for the next two years and $500 for the next six years.   The term was modifiable only in the event of the death of either party or the remarriage of the defendant.   Since the judgment was silent as to the modifiability of the alimony amount, it remained modifiable during the nine-year term.

3. The defendant was awarded as an assignment of property the sum of $650,000.

4. The plaintiff was also prohibited from transferring assets while any portion of the amount set forth in 3 above remained due and owing to the defendant.

On July 23, 2010, the defendant's counsel filed a Post-Trial Memorandum.   On October 28, 2010, the court entered orders requiring the plaintiff to produce proof of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing for Steel Fab, Inc., financial information pertaining to Talon Crane Co. and information pertaining to his collection of unemployment benefits.   To the extent he was able to comply, he has done so.   Unfortunately, he apparently failed to send copies of the discovery material to the defendant's counsel.

At the time of the hearing the plaintiff had moved to Mount Sterling, Kentucky, 8-9 weeks before the hearing.   He sold property in Connecticut in which he had an interest with the permission of the defendant, and used the net proceeds (approximately $150,000) to help reduce his $650,000 obligation to the defendant.

The court found the testimony of the plaintiff to be credible.   He suffers from an irregular heartbeat, is a diabetic, and has high blood pressure and cholesterol.   At the time of the hearing he was collecting weekly unemployment benefits of $492, net of $54 in Federal taxes and $16 in State taxes.   He claims his unemployment benefits are in jeopardy.   His previous source of income was from Steel Fab which the Internal Revenue Service had shut down 5 months before the hearing.   They have filed a Bankruptcy petition.   Talon Crane is worthless.   What assets it has are subject to a bank security interest and it has produced no income for the plaintiff.   They are no longer in business.   Notwithstanding his health problems, the plaintiff is actively seeking employment.

The court finds that the plaintiff has sustained a substantial decrease in his income.   The court reduces his current alimony payment to $200 per week retroactive to the date of the hearing.   He unilaterally stopped his weekly alimony payments on March 5, 2010.   The defendant is entitled to the $500 weekly payment from that date to the date of the hearing and $200 thereafter.   Any arrearage amount due the defendant shall be added to any balance due and owing on the plaintiff's $650,000 obligation to the defendant.

All other orders of the court not otherwise changed by this decision shall remain in full force and effect.   Further, the court's order calling for the reduction in alimony is entered without prejudice for the defendant to seek a rehearing after reviewing the discovery material sent to the court by the plaintiff, and that the defendant has no interest in any of the disclosed business entities of the plaintiff which are producing an income to him which would factor into a court's decision concerning a substantial change.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

CARUSO, JTR

Caruso, John R., J.T.R.