Opinion
No. FA 06-4015355
May 1, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the court are two motions, the defendant's motion to open and modify judgment and the plaintiff's motion to modify alimony.
1. Motion to Open and Modify Postjudgment
a. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff omitted any reference in his financial affidavit of June 9, 2006 to a vested pension. On the basis of fraud or mistake, the defendant is asking the court to reopen the divorce decree of July 14, 2006 and award to the defendant an equal share of the plaintiff's pension. The divorce was uncontested and both parties were pro se.
It is not disputed that the pension, a product of the plaintiff's teaching career, is not listed in the financial affidavit. The plaintiff testified that as a pro se, he wasn't fully educated as to the necessity to disclose the asset. He also stated that he required his pension to pay debts. The defendant, a former social worker with the State of Connecticut and a former psychologist with the New Haven public schools, testified that she had some idea that the plaintiff would receive a pension but nothing more than that. Neither party brought the plaintiff's pension to the court's attention, despite Wolven, J.'s insistence that documentation regarding the plaintiff's pension be provided to the court. (See Transcript, June 9, 2006.)
The defendant conceded she knew of the plaintiff's pension but not as to any amounts he was entitled to receive. The defendant also stated she did not know whether the pension was listed on the plaintiff's affidavit as the parties never shared their respective documents. (See Transcript, March 10, 2008.) The court relies on Plavnicky v. Plavnicky, 34 Conn.Sup. 504 (1976), which considered the failure of both parties to disclose to the court the existence of certain life insurance policies in the defendant's name. Upholding the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for a declaratory judgment, the appellate session of the Superior Court in a per curiam decision, concluded that the plaintiff's equitable position was "no better than that of the defendant . . ." Plavnicky at p. 511.
No similar evidence was presented to show the defendant had any knowledge of the plaintiff's teacher's union credit account. Therefore it is ordered that as it relates to the teacher's pension of the plaintiff, the defendant's motion to open and modify is denied. As it relates to the teacher's credit union account, the defendant's motion to open and modify is granted and one-half of all monies in said account as of July 14, 2006 plus interest accrued thereon to the date of this order are hereby awarded to the defendant.
b. The defendant also seeks an increase of support based upon unreported assets and increased income by the plaintiff. A review of her financial affidavit reveals that although her income level has declined dramatically, to a greater extent so have her obligations. The court notes that the defendant acknowledges she received financial support from her daughter. Whether those unspecified amounts are in the nature of a loan or a gift is unknown. There is no mention of the daughter's support in the defendant's financial affidavit. The court simply cannot accurately gauge the defendant's income from an incomplete affidavit. Therefore, the defendant's motion to modify alimony is denied.
2. The plaintiff has moved to reduce his support payments on the ground that he has experienced a substantial change in circumstances as it regards income. Notwithstanding his retirement postjudgment from the teaching profession, the plaintiff receives a teacher's pension and a salary as a state legislator. These together add up to more than his salary at the time of the dissolution. In addition, the plaintiff receives $3,000 to $4,000 annually as reimbursement for state mileage. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to modify alimony is denied.