DocketNumber: No. FA 93 53915 S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6718
Judges: SFERRAZZA, J.
Filed Date: 6/2/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On January 20, 1994, the court, Hammer, J., entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, which judgment included an order obligating the defendant to pay $250 per week for the support of his two, minor children. The defendant's current income is substantially the same as it was on the date of judgment. The court finds, however, that the plaintiff's income has risen significantly since the date of judgment because she has expanded her former parttime nursing job to fulltime employment. On January 20, 1994, her net, weekly income was about $530, and today it is around $685. CT Page 6719
The court finds that this increase in the plaintiff's income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying revisitation of the defendant's child support order under General Statutes §
Using the data submitted by the parties in their respective financial affidavits, pursuant to Practice Book § 463, and applying the child support guidelines promulgated under General Statutes §
General Statutes §§
The original child support order of $250 per week also substantially exceeded the guidelines figure. Both parties testified at the hearing on this motion that they were aware, on the date of judgment, that the support order, which was set forth in their settlement agreement and adopted by the court, was a deviation from the guideline amount. Unfortunately neither the agreement nor the court's judgment mentions the deviation or the reasons behind it.
The plaintiff testified that the purpose for the deviation, at the time of judgment, was to inflate the plaintiff's income so as to facilitate her acquisition of refinancing on the family residence. In consideration for the enhanced child support obligation the defendant received $10,000 from the proceeds of the newly obtained loan to the plaintiff; the plaintiff agreed to forego any claims to the defendant's pension; and the plaintiff agreed to be responsible solely for any "extra" expenses for the children, such as fees for extracurricular functions. The defendant could not recollect the reason for the upward deviation in his support obligation. The court finds the plaintiff's testimony in this regard to be credible and accurate.
Under guidelines §
Therefore, the court grants the defendant's motion to open the judgment and modifies the child support order downward from $250 per week to $230 per week.
Sferrazza, J.