137 Conn. App. 588
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff appeals from financial orders entered in the dissolution of the parties' second marriage.
- Parties met online in 2003; they married in 2004 after relocating defendant to the United States.
- Plaintiff filed for divorce October 12, 2006; by March 1, 2007 a default dissolution was obtained and the parties remarried seven days later.
- Second dissolution action filed February 9, 2009; memorandum of decision issued August 13, 2010 with financial orders challenged on appeal.
- Court reviewed alimony, property distribution, and related orders under an abuse of discretion standard.
- Court concluded it did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length of marriage vs. relationship period | Langley argues court used entire relationship, not just marriage | Court properly used statutory criteria and did not rely on pre-marital period | No abuse of discretion; did not improperly treat cohabitation as part of length of marriage. |
| Weight given to defendant’s English language command | Court gave undue weight to English language limitations | Court properly considered employability and language impact under §46b-82(a) | Court did not abuse discretion; five-year period reasonably tied to language-assisted employability. |
| Basis for alimony and earnings determination (gross vs net income) | Orders were based on gross income, improper | Court used earning capacity and net income; not solely gross income | Not abuse of discretion; orders based on earning capacity with consideration of net income. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loughlin v. Loughlin, 280 Conn. 632 (Conn. 2006) (length of marriage criterion; pre-marital/cohabitation not included as marriage length but may relate to other criteria)
- Wiegand v. Wiegand, 129 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. 2011) (broad discretion in alimony and property division; consideration of all criteria)
- Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318 (Conn. App. 2009) (emphasis on earning capacity and statutory criteria; not mere income)
- Graham v. Graham, 25 Conn. App. 41 (Conn. App. 1991) (court may weigh criteria differently; no need for equal weight)
- Chyung v. Chyung, 86 Conn. App. 665 (Conn. App. 2004) (criteria need not be given equal weight in alimony determinations)
- Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299 (Conn. 2003) (reversible error when orders based solely on gross income)
- Cleary v. Cleary, 103 Conn. App. 798 (Conn. App. 2007) (reversals where court relied only on gross income without net data)
- Hughes v. Hughes, 95 Conn. App. 200 (Conn. App. 2006) (orders may be function of gross income without being based on it; nets considered)