127 Conn. App. 788
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Husband Howard Fritz and wife Julianna Fritz divorced; trial court issued alimony and financial orders on July 2, 2008, and August 6, 2009, with appellate review following.
- Marriage began May 29, 1994; they have one child; wife earned $128,000 annually at trial; husband’s income was sporadic as a self-employed realtor.
- Court found husband capable of work with earning capacity at least $40,000; husband had management duties over rental property and limited advertising/effort by trial.
- Parties heavily relied on a home equity line of credit; court found wife paid most recurring debts including mortgages while husband contributed minimally beyond a $5,000 payment.
- Alimony awarded to wife for two years at $1,000 per month, nonmodifiable as to amount and term; court articulated rehabilitative purpose and time limitation.
- Plaintiff challenged alimony terms and treatment of home equity line contributions; appellate review upheld trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony nonmodifiable award adequate? | Fritz argues insufficient health consideration; alimony should be modifiable. | Fritz contends court properly imposed nonmodifiable, time-limited alimony. | Court properly awarded nonmodifiable, time-limited alimony. |
| Earning capacity finding adequate? | Fritz contends $40,000 earning capacity is unrealistic given training and health. | Court reasonably determined capacity based on education, work history, and real estate experience. | Imputation of at least $40,000 earning capacity upheld. |
| Two-year duration consistent with record? | Two-year limit illogical given findings supporting longer support. | Two years aligns with rehabilitative purpose and time to achieve self-sufficiency. | Two-year duration affirmed as not an abuse of discretion. |
| Modification preclusion proper? | Nonmodifiable alimony contravenes public policy; court lacks authority to bar modification. | Statute permits nonmodifiable alimony; court has authority to preclude modification. | Court properly precluded modification under § 46b-86. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kovalsick v. Kovalsick, 125 Conn.App. 265 (Conn. App. 2010) (rehabilitative alimony considerations; statutory criteria need not be stated for every factor)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 119 Conn.App. 120 (Conn. App. 2010) (authority to preclude modification of alimony under § 46b-86)
- de Repentigny v. de Repentigny, 121 Conn.App. 451 (Conn. App. 2010) (time-limited alimony; basis must be supported by record evidence)