Szynkowicz v. Szynkowicz
140 Conn. App. 525
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Married in 1993; parties separated in 2010; court found defendant at fault for breakdown.
- Court dissolved marriage April 19, 2011, ordering alimony, transfer of real property, life insurance, health insurance contribution, attorney’s fees, and credit card debt.
- Plaintiff is severely disabled with multiple health issues; relies on disability benefits and assistance to live at home.
- Defendant had substantial earnings (approx. $98,202.61 gross for 2010) and potential to pay, with overtime variability.
- Trial court found plaintiff’s earning capacity limited and tailored orders to plaintiff’s income and needs; postjudgment motion corrections occurred in 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony based on gross vs net income | Szynkowicz argues court relied on gross income | Szynkowicz contends net income should govern alimony | Court did not abuse discretion; net income considered and reference to gross was contextually appropriate |
| Life insurance requirement basis | Court lacked evidence of insurability and cost | Insurance obligation appropriate under statute | Court reasonably could find availability and require $200,000 policy |
| Overall financial orders punitive or impracticable | Orders are punitive/impracticable given plaintiff’s disability | Orders are necessary to preserve standard of living | Orders fall within trial court’s discretion and are not punitive or impracticable |
| Award of all real property to plaintiff | Full transfer of marital home is unsupported | Property division should be equalized or sold | Equitable given plaintiff’s hardship and contributions; not abuse of discretion |
| Attorney’s fees award | Fees warranted to protect plaintiff; adequate basis | Record insufficient for such an award; amount excessive | Court did not abuse discretion; award supported by record and statutory criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2005) (equity-based consideration of financial circumstances; not punitive or impracticable)
- Hughes v. Hughes, 95 Conn. App. 200 (Conn. App. 2006) (net income basis not always expressly stated; not fatal to order’s validity)
- Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318 (Conn. App. 2009) (net income consideration and context-aligned analysis)
- Boyne v. Boyne, 112 Conn. App. 279 (Conn. App. 2009) (statutory burden on availability/cost of life insurance; shift to party on whom obligation rests)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (Conn. 2010) (attorney’s fees discretionary; need not state every criteria)