Antonio Mandujano v. Aracely Cadenas (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The matter comes to this court by way of the defendant wife's (“wife”) Motion for Alimony, Pendente Lite (# 101.00) dated January 22, 2014.   Both parties are represented by counsel.   The parties were married in Norwalk, Connecticut, on January 25, 2003.   There are no minor children issue of the marriage.   Both parties are in good health, and both are employed.   The wife works as a cashier at Walgreen's and the husband and his brother are partners in a landscaping business.   The wife earns approximately $22,000.00 per year on a full-time basis.   The plaintiff husband (“husband”) reports approximately $50,000.00 per annum in income.   However, his living expenses are paid from the business, and there is some evidence that he has purposely left some monies in the business as retained earnings, so that it is likely that his actual available income is somewhat higher.   Currently, in the absence of a court order, he pays the wife's rent at the former marital residence, and deposits $700.00 per month in the wife's bank account.   They currently live separate and apart in rental units.   The husband also has personal savings in the form of CDs amounting to $45,000.00.   The wife also seeks an award of counsel fees pendente lite.   At the time of the hearing on March 18, 2014, the court entered other orders from the bench on Motions # 107.00, # 108.00, and # 109.00, as of record.

FINDINGS

The Court, having heard the testimony of both parties, and having considered the evidence presented at hearing, as well as the factors enumerated in General Statutes § 46b–62, 46b–82, and 46b–83, hereby makes the following findings.

1. That the purpose of pendente lite orders is different from that of permanent orders Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 330–31 (1983).

2. That according to his financial affidavit, the net income of the husband is $692.00 per week;  that, however, the evidence supports a finding that the husband has other income available to meet his needs and to satisfy his obligations under this order;  that according to her financial affidavit, the net income of the wife is $276.54 per week;  and that the alimony order of the court should be based thereon.  Ludgin v. McGowen, 64 Conn.App. 355, 358–59 (2001).

3. That the court has reviewed the Affidavit of Attorneys Fees of the counsel for the wife, dated March 17, 2014, in the amount of $4,676.80, and finds them to be reasonable under all the circumstances;  that the wife does not have ample liquid assets to pay same;  that the husband has liquid assets available to do so;  and that it is equitable and appropriate that the husband contribute to the wife's attorneys fees.

ORDERS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The wife's Motion for Alimony, Pendente Lite (# 101.00) is HEREBY GRANTED.   Commencing April 1, 2014, and monthly thereafter, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $2,500.00 as and for periodic alimony, until the death of either party or further order of court, whichever shall sooner occur.

2. The wife's Motion for Attorneys Fees Pendente Lite (# 103.00) is HEREBY GRANTED.   On or before April 1, 2014, the husband shall pay to the Chalumeau Law Group, LLC, the sum of $4,000.00, as and for a contribution toward the attorneys fees of the wife incurred to date.

3. The Court hereby orders a Contingent Wage Withholding Order pursuant to General Statutes § 52–362(b) in order to secure the payment of the alimony order.

4. There having been a contested hearing at which the financial orders were in dispute, the financial affidavits of the parties are hereby unsealed per P.B. § 25–59A(h).

THE COURT

SHAY, J.

Shay, Michael E., J.