DocketNumber: No. FA90 27 02 42 S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 2399
Judges: THIM, JUDGE
Filed Date: 3/8/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
This court may modify periodic alimony under General Statutes CT Page 2400
Since the time of the divorce, the plaintiff's earned net income has decreased by $187.00 per month and her expenses have decreased by 107.00 Per month. Today, she earns $1,795.73 net per month and receives $1,500.00 per month as support for the parties' three children. At the time of the divorce, the plaintiff's expenses were $4,608.00 per month. Today, her expenses are $4,500.00 per month.
The defendant reported a net monthly income of $3,295.73 at the time of the divorce. In actuality, his net was lower. He had understated his taxes. His expenses in 1991 excluding alimony and support were $4,500.00 per month. Today, the defendant earns $3,417.55 per month. His monthly expenses are $2,757.50. In addition, he is obligated to pay child support of $1,500 per month.
The plaintiff presently has assets of $2,000. Her liabilities, excluding obligations to the Internal Revenue Service, are $3,800. She lists two obligations to the I.R.S., $3,500.00 for 1989 and $8,600.00 for a later year. She and the defendant are jointly responsible for the first obligation. She is solely responsible for the second obligation.
The defendant has assets valued at $2,500.00. His liabilities, excluding the 1989 I.R.S. obligations, are $10,152.15. In addition, he will owe the I.R.S. $1,200.00 for 1993 income taxes.
By providing for the automatic reduction of alimony from $100.00 per month to $1.00 per year, the parties intended that the plaintiff should receive a nominal payment should no intervening material circumstances occur. See Scoville v. Scoville,
As for the plaintiff's request for an increase in child support, the court refrains from ruling upon this request since it was not part of the motion to modify alimony. The defendant is representing himself and is entitled to fair notice of the request. The court notes, nevertheless, that the present support order appears to be in compliance with the state child support guidelines.
The request that the court order the defendant to purchase a life insurance policy is denied. The judgment provides in paragraph 22 "that the defendant-husband shall provide no life insurance coverage for the benefit of the children, nor for the plaintiff-wife." There was no evidence that group life insurance is available through the defendant's place of employment. Furthermore, there was no evidence as to the cost of a $150,000.00 life insurance policy on the defendant's life. This court can not grant the request for insurance.
With regard to the 1989 federal income tax delinquency, each party is ordered to pay fifty percent of the deficiency.
The claim for attorney's fees is denied.
It is so ordered.
THIM, JUDGE