163 Conn.App. 517
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Divorce-related concurrence by Justice Beach in Dumbauld v. Dumbauld addressing alimony pendente lite (temporary/alimony during litigation) orders.
- Trial court issued pendente lite orders that required the payor spouse to make periodic payments and to contribute to college expenses; some orders may have required invading assets to satisfy obligations.
- Majority held that a trial court may not, as a matter of law, enter pendente lite alimony orders that the payer cannot satisfy without invading principal assets.
- Justice Beach concurs in result but disagrees with the majority’s categorical prohibition on pendente lite orders that may require invasion of assets.
- Beach relies on precedent (Simms v. Simms and Graham v. Graham) permitting modification or orders that may require invading assets in appropriate circumstances and highlights policy reasons (preventing conversion of income-producing assets to nonincome-producing assets; availability of alternatives like borrowing or converting assets).
- Beach agrees remand is appropriate because the court improperly ordered college expense payments and the overall pendente lite financial mosaic and amounts may need reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may enter pendente lite alimony orders that require the payor to invade assets | Dumbauld argued the court can order alimony even if it may require invading assets to meet support | Trial court (majority view) said courts may not, as a matter of law, order pendente lite alimony that forces invasion of assets | Beach concurs that remand is required but disagrees with the categorical bar; courts may, in appropriate circumstances, order such payments (remand for reconsideration) |
| Whether ordering college expense payments was proper at pendente lite stage | Plaintiff sought college expense orders as part of pendente lite relief | Defendant contested the appropriateness of such orders pending appeal/remand | Beach agreed the college expense orders were improper and supported remand for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Simms, 283 Conn. 494 (2007) (court may modify alimony postjudgment in a way that requires invading assets; courts may consider asset values when setting alimony)
- Graham v. Graham, 25 Conn. App. 41 (1991) (alimony orders in some circumstances may contemplate invasion of corpus of assets)