Wife’s Leukemia Fails to Modify Alimony
Divorce & Family Law Divorce & Family Law Child Support Health Care
Summary: Blog post about a woman who failed to have her alimony payments modified after she was diagnosed with Leukemia.
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.
A wife’s motion for upward modification of alimony was reversed, because her diagnosis of Leukemia, while significant, did not establish a substantial change to the original factors considered in the court’s determination of alimony.
The parties’ twenty-one year marriage was dissolved on January 5, 1998. Upon dissolution, the plaintiff husband was ordered to pay the defendant wife $ 1 per year in alimony for a non-modifiable term of ten years. The court found that the defendant received substantial financial resources in addition to those awarded in her divorce, and had assets exceeding $1 million. In addition, the defendant was cohabitating.
The court denied the defendant’s motion for upward modification of alimony, because her illness alone did not establish a substantial change to her needs considered in determinations of alimony. As established in McGuiness v. McGuiness 440 A.2d 804 (1981), illness alone does not warrant an alimony modification. Rather, the defendant must show she is unable to meet her medical expenses and that the payor is amply able to pay the increased alimony. While the defendant’s medical condition was a substantial change, her fiscal ability to provide for her needs showed no substantial change. Rather, the court found that the defendant’s assets had increased since the divorce.
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: Berry v. Berry, 870 A.2d 1161 ; 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 158 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)