Paul Russell v. Wendylee Russell (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE (109)

The plaintiff filed a complaint for the dissolution of his marriage having a return date of June 21, 2011.

The defendant filed the above-referenced motion on January 13, 2012.   The court held a contested hearing on the motion on February 1, 2012.   Both parties were represented by counsel.

The plaintiff is a machinist who earns approximately $18 an hour.   He testified that he has previously worked a 40–hour week, but, as the parties' son has recently been reunified with the plaintiff after being in foster care, the plaintiff has reduced his hours and his weekly gross income, pursuant to his financial statement dated January 31, 2012 is $635 a week with a net income of $533.

The plaintiff also testified that his financial statement earlier submitted to the court dated December 22, 2011 was actually prepared in the summer of 2011 and he neglected to update it;  the gross weekly wage reflected on such financial affidavit is $658 which at $18 an hour equates to only approximately 36.5 hours a week and not 40.   The child, during the summer, had not yet been returned to the plaintiff's care.

The plaintiff is currently paying all of the expenses related to the marital home and providing for the basic needs of the child.   The defendant is not paying child support.

The defendant has mental health issues and has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder.   She also suffers from degenerative bone disease.

At the time of the marriage, on October 18, 2003, the defendant had four children from another relationship and a daughter of the plaintiff's.   After the marriage the parties had another child, the son who is being reunified with the plaintiff.

The defendant did not work during the marriage.   Prior to the marriage she ran a home day care.   She was offered a retail sales job two years ago, but she claims she turned it down at the behest of the plaintiff and he denies the same.   During the marriage she would sell things at consignment and buy other items—she did not run a consignment store or operation.

She is currently residing in a shelter.   She has no automobile.   There was no evidence that any of the children are in her care at this time.   Her health care is through the auspices of the state and she has an application for state assistance pending.

The court finds the parties were married for eight years.   The court does not find the defendant to have, at this time, an earning capacity.

The court is not considering fault in determining the pendente lite request by the defendant for alimony.

After hearing the motions presented and considering all appropriate and applicable statutory and case law the court:

Grants the defendant's motion for alimony pendente lite (109) and orders the plaintiff to pay the sum of $50 a week alimony pendente lite.   The court in determining the amount of the pendente lite alimony has considered the plaintiff is not receiving child support and is paying all of the expenses for the marital home.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Olear, J.

Olear, Leslie I., J.