Stephen J. Pacheco v. Beth P. Pacheco (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff filed a postjudgment “Motion for Sanctions and Preclusion of Testimony” dated April 16, 2013 and a postjudgment “Motion for Modification” dated January 2, 2013 seeking to reduce the alimony being paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The defendant filed a postjudgment “Motion for Contempt” dated January 23, 2013 and a postjudgment “Motion for Modification” dated January 23, 2013 seeking to increase the alimony received by the defendant from the plaintiff.

The court held an evidentiary hearing on April 30, 2013 on said motions.   The parties were present during the hearing and each was represented by counsel.   Testimony was received by the plaintiff, the defendant, and a witness for the plaintiff.   Exhibits were entered by both the plaintiff and the defendant and both parties submitted financial affidavits.

From the testimony and evidence produced at the hearing and after assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the following facts to have been proven.

A review of the file and the relevant information reveals the following:

The parties were married on December 18, 1982.   A dissolution of marriage was commenced by complaint dated January 13, 1992 and the parties were divorced on January 17, 1995.   Pursuant to the orders entered by the Court on January 17, 1995, the court found that “[w]hile the defendant shows a need for alimony, the plaintiff is unable to pay an appropriate amount at this time.   The court orders the plaintiff to pay $1.00 per year as alimony which sum may be modified upon an improvement in the financial situation of the plaintiff or upon a decrease in his child support obligation.”

On January 5, 1996, upon further motions brought before the court, it was ordered that “[t]he plaintiff is ordered to provide the defendant a copy of his pay slip showing his year-to-date earnings on or before July 15th and December 31st of each year so that the defendant may monitor his earnings.”   The court in said order also declined to order a modification of alimony as requested by the defendant.

On June 24, 2004, the court, after hearing the defendant's motion to modify alimony ordered that “the court modifies the plaintiff's obligation to pay alimony to the defendant from $1 per year to $100 per week.”

On December 18, 2006, the court ordered that “[p]laintiff shall provide Defendant with a copy of his W–2st, 1099's, and proof of any other income including social security and workers' comp each year by 3/1 until his alimony obligation terminates.”

On February 20, 2013, it was ordered by the court that [b]oth parties will exchange proof of income from any and all sources two weeks prior to the special assignment date.

The plaintiff presented no direct evidence in support of his motion for sanctions and preclusion of testimony dated April 16, 2013 and did not seek to preclude the testimony presented by the defendant nor did it seek to preclude any documentation by the defendant during said hearing.   As such, said motion is denied.

In regard to the defendant's motion for contempt dated January 23, 2013 for the alleged failure of the plaintiff to comply with the court orders of January 5, 1996 and December 18, 2006, the defendant, in support of said motion submitted two exhibits A and B. The exhibits are letters dated September 29, 2006 and April 22, 2010 from the defendant to the plaintiff requesting the financial proof as required by the court orders.   In addition, the defendant provided testimony that she had made other requests over the years.   The court order requiring disclosure of financial information to the plaintiff first was ordered over seventeen years ago and was re-ordered over six years ago.   The court also notes that this highly contentious case has been to court on numerous motions filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant from the date of the first financial disclosure order of January 5, 2006 until the present time.   While the court finds that the plaintiff did not comply with the previous disclosure orders of the court, the defendant did not proceed on said motion for contempt until the hearing of April 30, 2013 and proceeded on numerous motions after the first January 5, 2006 order without the compliance of the plaintiff.   The court therefore denies the motion for contempt but does not change the previous orders of the court regarding the financial disclosure information imposed upon the plaintiff.

In regard to the motions for modification of alimony filed by the plaintiff and the defendant, the court finds that a valid order dated January 24, 2004 requiring the plaintiff to pay alimony to the defendant in the amount of $100.00 per week.   The court also finds that the previous court orders did not preclude the modification of the alimony award.   Since the date of the last court order, the court does not find a substantial change in circumstance.   Since the order of January 24, 2004, both parties' income has gone up although the plaintiff's income has increased to a greater extent than the defendants.   In addition, the plaintiff's health condition has declined and he is disabled.   As a result of his physical condition, his earning potential has decreased.   While the defendant also suffers from medical conditions, she is working at the present time and is seeking to expand her working responsibilities although she has some reservations as to whether her health will allow her to work additional hours.   Considering all of the testimony and evidence, the court does not find that there has been a substantial change to allow for the order of alimony to be modified, either as requested by the plaintiff or the defendant.   Accordingly, the motion to modify alimony is denied for both parties.

As to the modification of alimony, the court

Accordingly, the Court enters the following orders.

1. The plaintiff's “Motion for Sanctions and Preclusion of Testimony” dated April 16, 2013 is hereby denied.

2. The plaintiff's “Motion for Modification” of alimony dated January 2, 2013 is hereby denied.

3. The defendant's “Motion for Contempt” dated January 23, 2013 is hereby denied.

4. The defendant's “Motion for Modification” of alimony dated January 23, 2013 is hereby denied.

Graziani, Judge

Graziani, Edward C., J.