Mary Brooks v. Scott Brooks (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION OF ORDER RE ALIMONY CHILD SUPPORT, PENDENTE LITE

This dissolution was tried before the Honorable Howard Owens, who rendered his judgment on May 27, 2008.   The defendant appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the trial court, remanding the case for a new trial on all financial issues.   This decision was rendered on June 1, 2010.

On October 24, 2005, the court entered a pendente lite unallocated alimony and child support order of $12,000.00 per month, which to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.   In the judgment, the plaintiff was awarded $6,000.00 per month in periodic alimony and a lump sum alimony payment of $1,700,000.00, to be paid within 60 days.   Subsequent to Judge Owens' judgment, the defendant has continuously paid the plaintiff $6,000.00 in unallocated support.   The plaintiff's motion to modify that support payment was denied in October 2008, while the appeal was pending.

The plaintiff filed this motion on August 17, 2011, requesting this court reinstate the pendente lite order of unallocated support.   Both sides agree that the pendente lite support orders merge into the judgment of the trial court, and are thereby terminated.   See:  Saunders v. Saunders, 140 Conn. 140, 146, 98 A.2d 815 (1953).   The parties disagree, however, as to the status of the support orders upon reversal of the trial court judgment by the Appellate Court.

It is the plaintiff's contention that once the trial court was reversed, the pendente lite orders again became the operative support orders.   She opines that pendente lite orders are extinguished at the time of judgment, “because their purpose is extinguished at that time.”  Connolly v. Connolly, 191 Conn. 468, 480, 464 A.2d 837 (1983).   Once the judgment is reversed, the pendente lite orders again become necessary;  therefore, are resurrected.   The defendant counters that the pendente lite orders ceased to exist once they merged into the judgment and the defendant is paying the only current order:  $6,000.00 per month.   Moreover, the defendant characterizes the plaintiff's motion as an impermissible attempt to retroactively modify the support orders.

While counsel prepared persuasive briefs and presented novel legal arguments, they did not cite, nor could the court find, case law directly on point.   This court is mindful that the “[T]he paramount role of a court when considering domestic relations cases is one of a court of equity.   The court's equity powers are essential to its ability to fashion the appropriate relief in domestic relations cases.   The power to act equitably is the keystone to the court's ability to fashion relief in the infinite variety of circumstances which arise out of the dissolution of a marriage.   Without this wide discretion and broad equitable power, the courts in some cases might be unable fairly to resolve the parties' dispute ․ These powers, although not expressly given to the court by statute, have been held to be inherent powers of the trial court ․” LaBow v. LaBow, 13 Conn.App. 330, 351, 537 A.2d 157 (1988), cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806, 540 A.2d 374 (1988) (internal quotations omitted).

Subsequent to the court judgment the defendant correctly paid a monthly support order of $6,000.00 per month.   Following the Appellate decision in June 2010, the parties continued that arrangement.   In August 2011, the validity of that payment was questioned by the plaintiff, who now states that the pendente lite support order should have been reinstated when the Appellate Court reversed the trial court.   This court is not persuaded.   First, there is no authority for that proposition;  rather, case law is clear that the pendente lite orders are extinguished at the time of judgment.   In addition, this court does not find it fair or equitable to automatically reinstate a support order which is six years old, without careful application of the statutory criteria for support to the parties' current situations.

Nor, does the court find the defendant's position:  that $6,000 per month “is clearly the current order,” viable. $6,000.00 per month was only one part of the alimony award issued by Judge Owens.   He also ordered lump sum alimony in the amount of $1,700,000.00 to be paid to the plaintiff, which order was stayed by the appeal.   Standing alone, the $6,000.00 per month cracks the mosaic created by the trial court, and is inequitable and unfair to the plaintiff.   Moreover, this award was reversed, further undermining its validity at this time.

This court finds that the only fair and equitable solution is to conduct an evidentiary hearing to establish a temporary support order to be in place until the case can be retried.   Because new counsel has appeared for the plaintiff, it is apparent that the trial of this matter will be months away.   Accordingly, the court orders the parties to contact case flow to schedule a hearing on temporary support as soon as possible.   The defendant is ordered to continue the current support arrangement until the hearing can be conducted and decided.   Any decision concerning support shall be retroactive to the date of the Plaintiff's Motion for Order:  August 17, 2011.

It Is So Ordered,

WOLVEN, J.

Wolven, Carol A., J.