George J. Moses v. Denise S. Moses (2012)

CORRECTION (Re Memorandum of Decision dated January 17, 2012)

On January 17, 2012, the court entered post-judgment orders relating to the payment of certain reasonable and necessary day care expenses incurred by the defendant mother (“mother”) by way of a Memorandum of Decision.   By way of a Motion to Reargue dated February 6, 2012, the plaintiff father (“father”) has asked the court to reconsider its order in light of the testimony and evidence.   Specifically, the father has raised the following issues:  (a) the application of the stipulated credit for payments by the husband;  (b) a credit for significant periods of time that the child was with the father, in particular during the summer months;  and (c) the application of the “211 InfoLine table.”

The court has reviewed the file, as well as the excerpts of the transcript of November 29, 2011.   Accordingly, based upon its review, the court hereby makes the following findings and order:

1. That 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.  Van Nest v. Kegg, 70 Conn.App. 191 (2002).

2. The Findings are hereby corrected to reflect the fact that the father has paid the sum of $12,922.00 as and for his contribution toward the Qualifying Day Care Expenses of the mother.

3. That the court further finds that the father is entitled to an additional credit as and for the significant periods of time in which the minor child has spent with him, which the court finds to be 20 weeks (5 weeks per Summer, for the period 2008 through 2011), calculated as follows:  $39,560.00 minus $4,000.00 = $35,560.00 x .35 = $12,446.00.

4. The court therefore corrects the Findings to reflect the fact that, based upon the foregoing calculations, the father has overpaid the mother by $476.00 ($12,922.00 minus $12,446.00);  and that he shall be entitled to an offset against his current child support obligation in the amount $15.00 per week until the overpayment is satisfied in full.

5. The court has considered the father's argument to the effect that it should have applied the average cost of said day care as shown on the 2–1–1 InfoLine Child Care Table, however, it declines to correct its order.   The court finds that the table is advisory only, and that it is within the discretion of the court to determine the appropriate expenditure for Qualifying Day Care Expenses;  that the initial order of the court (Tierney, J.) did not limit the type of day care expenses;  that this finding does not constitute a modification thereof;  that the court having previously found the order to be ambiguous, was well within its powers to interpret same;  that discussions in chambers are not evidence, nor are they binding on the court;  and that furthermore, said discussions are not the proper subject to raise in argument.

In all other respects, the findings and order shall remain in full force and effect.

THE COURT

SHAY, J.

Shay, Michael E., J.