Mary V. Cunningham v. Gerard Cunningham (2011)

CORRECTION AND CLARIFICATION

The marriage of the parties was dissolved by decree of this court on March 9, 2011, at which time the court issued a Memorandum of Decision (“MOD”).   The plaintiff wife has asked the court to reconsider or clarify certain portions of the decree by way of motion dated March 25, 2011.   Where the court believes that the decision would otherwise benefit by a clarification and/or correction, it lies within the power of the court to do so, even sua sponte.  “Under the common law, judgments may be ‘corrected’ at any time.”  Blake v. Blake, 211 Conn. 485, 494 (1989);  Van Nest v. Kegg, 70 Conn.App. 191, 195–96 (2002).   Accordingly, the court has reviewed the MOD in light of the plaintiff's request and responds as follows.

1. Capital Account—Although the court refers to the Stipulation re Capital Account dated December 8, 2010, in ¶ 1 on page 4 of the MOD, by way of oversight, it neglected to incorporate it in the decree and does so herewith.

2. Life Insurance— The court hereby clarifies Section 11 of its Order on page 12 of the MOD by stating that the intention of the court that $1,000,000.00 of life insurance be maintained by the husband so long as he has either an alimony obligation alone or a combined alimony and child support obligation.   When the alimony terminates, his obligation is reduced as set forth therein.

3. Deloitte Qualified Plan— By way of clarification, as to calculation of the coverture in whole months, the answer to the plaintiff's question is yes.

4. Deloitte Non–Qualified Plan— By way of clarification, as to calculation of the coverture in whole months, the answer is yes.   As to the remainder of the request, the language is sufficiently clear, and the court has reserved jurisdiction regarding any other issues that may arise.

5. Joint Tax Returns— The court's notes indicate that the parties asked for and received a postponement of the court decision in order to permit them to file the 2010 State and Federal Income Tax. If the plaintiff presents the court with a transcript indicating that the inclusion of 2009, returns were also intended, or the parties so stipulate, the court will consider a further correction.   The court has reserved jurisdiction regarding any other issues that may arise in this regard.

6. Personal Exemptions— Section 16 of the MOD at page 17 is sufficiently clear and requires no clarification.   The court may award the personal exemptions to either party and has done so.  Serrano v. Serrano, 213 Conn. 1 (1989).

7. Alimony —The court considered all of the statutory factors set forth in General Statutes § 46b–82, in particular the assignment of income-producing property;  it is sufficiently clear;  and, therefore, the motion to clarify or reconsider this issue is hereby denied.

In all other respects, the decree of this court remains in full force and effect.

THE COURT

SHAY, J.

Shay, Michael E., J.