DocketNumber: No. FA 96 72455
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11023
Judges: LEVIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/8/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
General Statutes §
Here the defendant showed an increase in the plaintiff's income of approximately $70.00 weekly due to her renting space in her property and working additional hours in a restaurant. The defendant's income increased by approximately $30.00 weekly. The plaintiff's weekly expenses continue to exceed her weekly income by approximately $400.00. See Curziv. Curzi,
As to the claim that the plaintiff is cohabiting, the witness Thomas Gaynor and the plaintiff testified to such cohabitation. While the court does not believe that Mr. Gaynor's presence costs the plaintiff nothing (i.e. hot water and electricity), that cost to the plaintiff is minimal. Gaynor does not have meals at the plaintiff's house and works long hours. Gaynor contributes nothing to the plaintiff's household expenses. Accordingly, the court accepts as credible that the plaintiff's financial needs are not affected by this cohabitation.
Under General Statutes §
in which a final judgment has been entered providing for the payment of periodic alimony by one party to the other, the Superior Court may, in its discretion and upon notice and hearing, modify such judgment and suspend, reduce or terminate the payment of periodic alimony upon showing that the party receiving the periodic alimony is living with another person under the circumstances which the court finds should result in the modification, suspension, reduction or termination of alimony because the living arrangements cause such a change of circumstances as to alter the financial needs of that party.
The Supreme Court has recently discussed this section and interpreted it to state "the non-marital union must be one with attendant financial consequences before the trial court may alter an award of alimony."DeMaria v. DeMaria,
The words of the applicable statutes are clear. See Cilley v.Lamphere,
Having considered the evidence as to the change in the plaintiff's financial circumstances, the court finds that the defendant has failed to prove that any change in the plaintiff's circumstances is substantial.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
DiPentima, J. CT Page 11024