Use of Liquid Assets in Pendente Lite Improper, Says Court
by
Joseph C. Maya on May. 05, 2017
Divorce & Family Law Divorce & Family Law Child Support Lawsuit & Dispute Lawsuit
Summary: Blog post on the topic of alimony and how the use of liquid assets is improper in determining the amount owed.
If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
The Connecticut Court of Appeals found that a husband was improperly ordered to pay more alimony pendent lite, because the amount exceeded his net income.
The plaintiff commenced dissolution of marriage action on June 8, 2012. The parties were married on May 16, 1992, and have four children. The plaintiff/mother was a full-time caretaker for the children, and held a 50% interest in Bella Tu, LLC, a clothing design company. The business had not generated a profit since its inception in 2009. The defendant managed and operated a variety of hedge funds. Prior to and during dissolution, the parties’ monthly expenses totaled approximately 50,000, which were paid by the defendant’s base salary of $252,000 and the use of various liquid assets. The defendant had been withdrawing funds from a business bank account to make up for the shortfall between his salary and the monthly expense.
The lower court made their determination for the amount of alimony pendent lite based on the $50,000 expenditure made when the parties’ were together as a couple. The court found that the defendant’s withdrawal from liquid assets could support the payment of $600,000 annually on a $252,000 salary.
The appellate court found that the trial court had abused its discretion based on the facts presented. The lower court abused its discretion in their order for the defendant to use liquid assets to pay pendent lite alimony, because it decides the issue of property distribution before it is statutorily authorized to do so. In addition, orders that the defendant pay an unspecified amount for the children’s college tuition was also improper. According to Connecticut General Statute §46b-83, education support is limited to the tuition rate for the University of Connecticut. In the case at hand, the tuition for out-of-state and private universities exceeded this statutory limit.
For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.
Source: Dumbauld v. Dumbauld, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 93 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016)
