DocketNumber: No. 29 76 68
Citation Numbers: 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 819
Judges: FREEDMAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/8/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The husband shall also pay to the wife as support for the benefit of the minor children the sum of THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS ($370.00) monthly payable at the rate of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($185.00) on the 1st and 15th day of each month. Said payments are to continue until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years.
There is now before this court the plaintiff wife's motion seeking to modify the amount of child support.
Child support may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances whether or not such change of circumstances was contemplated at the time of the dissolution. P.A. 90-213.
The court finds that there has been a showing of a substantial change in circumstances in that:
(a) The defendant husband's annual gross income has increased from $63,492 at the time of the dissolution to $87,993 as of the date hereof.
(b) As a result of injuries suffered in an automobile accident on June 17, 1986 the plaintiff wife's degenerative disc condition has worsened and her ability to work has been impaired.
(c) The minor children have developed various health problems, including worsening allergies.
CT Page 820 Accordingly, the order of child support is modified as follows:
The defendant husband shall pay to the plaintiff wife the sum of $370 per month for the support of each of the minor children, payable one-half on the first of each month and the other half on the fifteenth of each month. Said payments shall continue until such child reaches the age of majority or is sooner emancipated and shall be made by way of an immediate wage withholding.
Except as expressly modified herein, all other orders of this court shall remain in full force and effect.
The plaintiff wife has requested that any modification be retroactive to either the date of her motion or the date of the first scheduled hearing.
This court has previously ruled that it has the power to increase a prior order of child support retroactively to the date a proper motion for modification is filed if the equities of the matter before the court so dictate. Tosolini v. Tosolini, #154472, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, December 30, 1987 (F. Freedman, J.).
Two other Superior Court Judges have reached a similar result. See: Stowe v. Stowe, 4 Conn. Law Tribune, No. 46 at p. 14 (11/13/78) (Berdon, J.) and Gray v. Gray, 12 Conn. Law Tribune, No. 3 at p. 25 (1/20/86) (F. Hennessy, J.).
Our Supreme Court in Hendrix v. Hendrix,
Our Appellate Court, however, in the recent case of Paddock v. Paddock,
Our legislature prior to Paddock, and somewhat prophetically, enacted P.A. 90-188 which, in part, amended
No order for periodic payment of permanent alimony or support may be subject to retroactive modification, except that the court may order modification with respect to any period during which there is a pending motion for modification of an alimony or support order from the date of service of notice of such pending motion upon the opposing party pursuant to section 52- 50.
P.A. 90-188, however, does not become effective until October 1, 1990.
Accordingly, the request for retroactive modification is denied.
FREDERICK A . FREEDMAN, Judge