Opinion
No. FA97 034 55 69
October 28, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The marriage of the parties was dissolved on December 16, 1998. Plaintiff was ordered to pay alimony in the amount of $50.00 per week for a period of ten years or until the death of either party, the Wife's re-marriage or co-habitation as defined by Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-86. Child support was also ordered in the amount of $275.00 per week but was reduced by the court on June 12, 2003 to $182.00 per week. Plaintiff was ordered pursuant to the judgment to provide medical insurance for the benefit of the minor children through his union. This order was also modified on June 12, 2003 so that defendant would maintain her then current health insurance coverage for the children until such time as plaintiff became re-employed and became eligible for health insurance benefits through his employment and/or union.
In DeMaria v. DeMaria, 247 Conn. 715, 724 A.2d 1088 (1999), the Supreme Court held that "Because, however `living with another' person without financial benefit did not establish sufficient reason to refashion an award of alimony under General Statutes § 46b-81, the legislature imposed the additional requirement that the party making alimony prove the living arrangement has resulted in a change in circumstances that alters the financial needs of the alimony recipient. Therefore, this additional requirement, in effect, serves as a limitation." DeMaria, 247 Conn. 715 at 720. Under Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-86(b), the Court may modify or terminate "the payment of periodic alimony by one party to the other upon a showing that the party receiving the periodic alimony is living with another person [and] the living arrangements cause such a change of circumstances as to alter the financial needs of that party." In Distefano v. Distefano, 67 Conn.App. 628, 787 A.2d 675 (2002), the court held that "It must be shown that the party receiving the alimony is cohabitating with another individual. If it is proven that there is cohabitation, the party seeking to alter the terms of the alimony payments must then establish that the recipient's financial needs have been altered as a result of the cohabitation." Distefano, at 633. The statutory criteria and the case law in Connecticut is clear that co-habitation must result in a change in circumstance that alters the financial need of the recipient of alimony in order for payments to be modified or terminated.
1. While there is some dispute in the evidence, the evidence makes clear that there was no substantial change in Bambina Hoyt's financial circumstances due to David Beardsley's living with her. There is no evidence to show that David Beardsley made any significant contributions that had an impact upon the needs and financial resources of the defendant as a result of their cohabitation. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish that the cohabitation resulted in an alteration of Bambina Hoyt's financial need.
2. The plaintiff has also requested interest on the amount of the alleged overpayment but the request is denied.
3. The plaintiff shall have the right to claim the children as dependents on his federal income tax returns so long as he is eligible for same.
4. Child support shall be modified and the plaintiff shall pay the sum of $135.00 per week to the defendant in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines of the State of Connecticut. Child support payments will continue until the minor child reaches the age of eighteen and is a full-time high school student, but in no event past the 19th birthday.
5. The defendant shall maintain her current health insurance coverage for the children through her employer until such time as the plaintiff becomes re-employed and eligible for health insurance benefits through his employer and/or union.