Cordone v. Cordone

Citations: 51 Conn. App. 530; 752 A.2d 1082; 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 19Docket: AC 16122

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; January 19, 1999; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The plaintiff appeals the trial court's judgment in her marriage dissolution case, contesting three points: (1) the lack of an order requiring the defendant to maintain life insurance as security for time-limited alimony, (2) the absence of an immediate wage withholding order for alimony payments, and (3) the award of only $3500 in counsel fees. The appellate court remands the case to issue a wage withholding order as mandated by General Statutes § 52-362(b) but affirms all other aspects of the trial court's decision. The marriage, which lasted from May 23, 1970, until its dissolution on June 4, 1996, involved no minor children. The trial court found the marriage irretrievably broken, attributing more responsibility for the breakdown to the defendant. It ordered the defendant to assign 50% of his teacher retirement benefits to the plaintiff, provide health insurance for three years, pay $450 weekly alimony for seven years, and grant $3500 in counsel fees. The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion regarding the life insurance order, noting that while such orders are often deemed appropriate, the trial court determined, based on the defendant's demeanor, work history, and performance, that such security was unnecessary for ensuring alimony payments.

The plaintiff contends that life insurance should secure alimony payments in case the defendant dies before the alimony term ends. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding she did not require the full seven years of alimony while simultaneously determining that no security was necessary. The plaintiff also claims the court improperly considered factors unrelated to ensuring alimony payments through life insurance. The court's discretion to order such security is supported by various factors, including the defendant’s financial stability, as he possesses retirement accounts totaling $22,000, an annuity worth $9,000, and a life insurance policy valued at $120,000. The defendant is in good health, 49 years old, and employed as an administrator. Considering these details and the statutory factors, the court's discretion in not ordering security for alimony was justified.

Additionally, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court failed to issue an immediate wage withholding order as mandated by General Statutes 52-362 (b). She claims the court's silence on a contingent wage withholding order implies one was issued without proper cause, which is not permitted. The defendant counters that the court need not provide a rationale for such an order and argues that valid cause existed. The law requires immediate wage withholding orders unless the court specifies otherwise for cause. The court did not fulfill its obligations under the statute by failing to issue a withholding order or inform the defendant of his rights. Consequently, the case must be remanded for these procedural errors.

The defendant is entitled to notice as mandated by statute, and the court must issue either an immediate or contingent wage withholding order based on its findings. The plaintiff's claim regarding the inadequate award of counsel fees was found unpersuasive. General Statutes § 46b-62 allows the court to order one spouse to pay the other's reasonable attorney's fees based on financial abilities and the criteria in § 46b-82, which include factors like marriage length, causes for dissolution, and each party's financial circumstances. Courts typically grant counsel fees in divorce cases to prevent deprivation of rights due to financial constraints, but if both parties can afford their fees, they should be expected to pay them independently.

The awarding of counsel fees involves judicial discretion, and an abuse of that discretion is identified only if the court's conclusion appears unreasonable. The plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding only $3,500 in fees without expressly citing all statutory criteria. However, the court has no obligation to make explicit findings on each criterion. The trial court indicated it considered the statutory criteria in its decision-making process, and the plaintiff's claim that the criteria were not applied is unsupported by the record. The court's decision to award $3,500 in counsel fees was affirmed, and the case was remanded for a hearing to determine the appropriate wage withholding order under General Statutes § 52-362(b). The judgment was affirmed in all other aspects, with concurrence from other judges.

The court may order immediate wage withholding or, under certain conditions, contingent withholding based on an affidavit of the obligor's delinquency or a subsequent court order following a hearing. The plaintiff requested an immediate wage withholding for alimony but there was no agreement for a contingent order. The trial court did not provide reasons for not issuing the immediate order, which the plaintiff sought to review. The appellate court granted review but denied relief regarding the immediate wage withholding, noting the trial court's reasons remain unclear and acknowledging a violation of the statute. The remand does not affect existing financial awards, avoiding a complete reassessment by the trial court. The plaintiff submitted two financial affidavits: the first indicated $9,062.78 in attorney’s fees as of February 1, 1996, and the second, submitted post-trial, showed $23,576.28 for services rendered through trial.