Monique Tatro v. Jefferson Tatro (2013)

RULING ON MOTION FOR ARTICULATION (No. 141)

This court issued a memorandum of decision in this matter dated November 22, 2013.   By motion dated December 12, 2013, the defendant, Jefferson Tatro, moved for articulation.   The motion appeared on the short calendar on December 16, 2013 at which time counsel for the parties appeared and were heard on the issue of articulation.   The court took the matter under advisement.

DISCUSSION

“[A]n articulation is appropriate where the trial court's decision contains some ambiguity or deficiency reasonably susceptible of clarification ․ [P]roper utilization of the motion for articulation serves to dispel any ․ ambiguity by clarifying the factual and legal basis upon which the trial court rendered its decision, thereby sharpening the issues on appeal.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 294 Conn. 121, 131 n.11, 981 A.2d 1068 (2009).

Defendant seeks articulation with regard to two specific issues.   First, the defendant requests the court articulate the defendant's income that was used in setting the child support, alimony and property settlement orders.   Second, the defendant seeks articulation regarding the basis of the court's property settlement order of $150 per week through December 2019.

The court attached to its decision a copy of the guideline calculation relied upon by the court.   Thus, further articulation concerning the income used to determine the child support obligation is unnecessary.

However, the court will grant defendant's request for further articulation with regard to the income determination as it relates to alimony and property settlement in order to establish a baseline for any future motion to modify the alimony order.

The court utilized the defendant's year to date income of $51,185.94 consisting of income from his employment and workers' compensation benefits through September 5, 2013.   The court calculated that there were sixteen weeks and 3 days remaining through the end of the year.   The defendant's base bi-weekly earnings as shown on Exhibit 10 are $1999.32 or roughly one thousand dollars per week, which would add almost an additional $16,600 to the defendant's earnings exclusive of mandatory overtime that would likely occur in the months of November and December due to weather conditions.   Thus, the court considered the defendant's income to be approximately $67,000.¹

Lastly, with regard to the property settlement order, the court states that said order was part of the entire financial mosaic fashioned by the court.   The court entered said order based in part upon the testimony concerning the $35,000 remaining on the HELOC representing the purchase price of the defendant's vehicle, but also factoring in the amount and duration of the alimony order, the tax implications, the ability of the husband to make a lump sum payment at the present time, the needs and abilities of the parties as well as all the statutory criteria the court must consider pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–81.

BY THE COURT,

Susan A. Connors

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court notes that the memorandum of decision states that this “[puts] him on target to earn approximately $62,000 exclusive of any additional overtime.”   The $62,000 was a scrivener' s error..  FN1. The court notes that the memorandum of decision states that this “[puts] him on target to earn approximately $62,000 exclusive of any additional overtime.”   The $62,000 was a scrivener' s error.

Connors, Susan A., J.