Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gwyneth Condon v. Kenneth Condon
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The parties were married on September 29, 1990. Their marriage was dissolved on April 30, 2010. At that time, under the SEPARATION AND PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT dated April 30, 2010, which was incorporated into the Judgment of Dissolution, (J. Markle) the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff alimony in the amount of $350 on a weekly basis. In addition, the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff child support in the weekly amount of $330.
The Defendant filed a motion dated June 21, 2011 seeking to modify the alimony and child support orders dated April 30, 2010. This motion was served on June 27, 2011. The hearing was held on September 28, 2011.
The Defendant asserts that there has been a substantial change of circumstances justifying a downward modification of his alimony order and his child support order.
Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 46b–86(a) provides that “[u]nless and to the extent that the decree precludes modification ․ any final order for alimony or support ․ may at any time thereafter be continued, set aside, altered or modified ․ upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party or upon a showing that the final order for child support substantially deviates from the child support guidelines ․”
The Connecticut Supreme Court has stated that “ ‘․ [o]nce a trial court determines that there has been a substantial change in the financial circumstances of one of the parties, the same criteria that determine an initial award ․ are relevant to the question of modification.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 737, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994). Under § 46b–82, those criteria include ‘the length of the marriage, the causes for the annulment, dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties and the award, if any, which the court may make pursuant to section 46b–81 ․’ “ Gay v. Gay, 266 Conn. 641, 645 (2003).
At the time of the dissolution, the Defendant was working as Senior Estimator for a construction company. However, he has subsequently been laid off and has been getting unemployment payments. Starting around the middle of August, the Defendant has been paying the Plaintiff $140 per week for child support payments instead of $330 which were ordered at the time of the dissolution.
The Defendant is seeking a downward modification of child support to the $140 a week. This amount is the guidelines amount with the reduced income of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is not objecting to the child support payments being reduced to that amount. However, the Defendant is also seeking a reduction of his weekly alimony payment from $350 to $1 a year.
The Defendant testified that he has diligently been looking for work and would be flexible in relocating in furtherance of that goal. The Court finds his testimony to be credible.
The Plaintiff's net weekly income increased from $138.15 to $404.74 (which amount does not include alimony and child support). At the same time, the Defendant's net weekly income has decreased from $1,563 to $508.
The court finds that there has been a substantial change of circumstances since the date of the last order. The judgment will be modified and child support will be ordered to be decreased from $330 per week to $140 per week (this amount is in accordance with the child support guidelines and was without objection by the Plaintiff) and alimony will be ordered to be decreased from $350 per week to $50 per week.
In the event the Defendant secures new employment, he shall immediately notify the Plaintiff of the terms and conditions of any such new employment and shall furnish her with proof of his income, including but not limited to his right to any bonus and incentive compensation.
The judgment is not otherwise modified. This is retroactive to the date of service.
By the court,
Judge Richard E. Burke
Burke, Richard E., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: FA094037932
Decided: October 04, 2011
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)