Posts tagged with "assets"

What Does a Court Consider When Deciding an Educational Support Order in Connecticut?

In determining whether to enter an educational support order in Connecticut, the court considers all relevant circumstances.  Under the bill these circumstances include: the parents income, assets, and other obligations; the child’s need for support; the availability of financial aid; the reasonableness of the higher education to be funded (the court looks to the child’s academic record); the likelihood that the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education if the family were still intact; and the child’s preparation and commitment to higher education.  The bill also requires that both parents discuss and agree on the school, and imposes obligations on the child who is to receive the assistance.  The student must be enrolled in an institution of higher education on at least a half-time basis, maintain good academic standing, and share all academic records with both parents during the term of order.

If you have any questions related to education law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Policy of Enforcing Connecticut Non-Compete Agreements to Protect Employer’s Interests

Torrington Creamery, Inc. v. Davenport, 126 Conn. 515 pertains to a dispute regarding a non-compete agreement between an employer and employee in the dairy products industry in 1940.  While this case is by no means recent, it is a seminal case that lays the groundwork for the policy of enforcing non-compete agreements in Connecticut on the grounds of protecting the employer’s interest.  Specifically, this is one of the first Connecticut cases to address the enforceability of a company’s non-compete agreements when another company acquires it.

The High Brook Corporation employed Mr. Preston Davenport as a farm manager and superintendent beginning in 1932 at its Torrington, Connecticut location.  The company produced and distributed dairy products in the towns of Torrington, Litchfield, Winsted, Thomaston, New Milford, New Preston, and Greenwich, all towns in western or southwestern Connecticut.  High Brook changed its name to The Sunny Valley Corporation in March 1938 and on April 15, 1938, had Mr. Davenport sign an employment contract.  The contract specified that Mr. Davenport would receive a fixed compensation with no set duration and that he would be subject to several restrictive covenants.  A non-solicitation clause prohibited Mr. Davenport from soliciting, either directly or indirectly, Sunny Valley or its successor’s customers for a period of two years.  Meanwhile, a non-compete clause prohibited Mr. Davenport from engaging in the dairy production and distribution industry in the towns where Sunny Valley operated.  Another clause in the employment agreement stipulated that a court’s invalidation of a portion of the agreement would not affect the legally binding nature of the other provisions.  Sunny Valley sold its operations and assets to Torrington Creamery, Inc. in October 1938 and the company discharged Mr. Davenport from employment on October 18, 1938.  He proceeded to start his own dairy production and distribution business in February 1939 in the towns of Torrington and Litchfield.

Torrington Creamery sued Mr. Davenport to enforce the duration and geographical limitations of the restrictive covenant he had signed with Sunny Valley Corporation.  The Superior Court in Litchfield County found in favor of Torrington Creamery, Mr. Davenport appealed the decision, and the case went on to the Connecticut Supreme Court where it affirmed the lower court’s decision.  The Supreme Court found the terms of the non-compete agreement to be reasonable and necessary for the protection of Torrington Creamery’s business interests.  The notion of “protecting an employer’s business interests” is a driving force and major policy concern when deciding whether to enforce a non-compete agreement under Connecticut law.  Restrictive covenants become valuable assets of the employer and courts generally hold that the employer is entitled to the right to safeguard these assets.  Equally as important, the court held that the employer benefits contained in a restrictive covenant can be assigned to a purchaser in the event of the sale of the business and its assets.  Thus, when a company acquires another company, it gains the legal authority to enforce the acquired company’s valid non-compete agreements.  Courts view restrictive covenants as valuable business assets that provide for the necessary protection of the employer and any successor company.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Keywords: assets, assigned to purchaser, business assets, business interests, diary industry, sale of business, sold operations, enforcement, franchise, injunctive relief, obligations, prohibitions, valid, attempted solicitation, solicitation, refuse to enforce, reasonably necessary, former employer, previous employer, job responsibilities, binding, classified information, commercial operations, competing, compete, directly, employer’s interest, indirectly, internet-based, protect, reasonable, restricting disclosures, restricting disclosures, similar products, burden of proof, duress, direct competitor, disclosure of trade secrets, employment contract, enforceability, geographic limitations, headquarters, improper competition, injunction, management responsibilities, non-compete covenant, radius, sales representative, time limitations, unreasonable provisions, attorney, attorneys, employment attorneys, bonus, bonuses, companies, company, connecticut, customary practices, Darien, departing employees, directors, employee, employer, employment law, employment at-will, at-will, legal counsel, executives, New York, Fairfield, Fairfield County, Norwalk, Westport, Weston, Easton, Bridgeport, Stamford, Stratford, severance package, Greenwich, harassment, discrimination, hiring, human resources, job offers, lawyer, lawyers, leaving company, leverage, Maya Murphy, negotiated, negotiating severance packages, negotiation, New Canaan, non-compete, non-competition, non-disparagement, non-solicitation, offer, offer agreement, offer letter, P.C., payroll, position, represent, representation, salary, salaries,  senior management, manager, separation agreement, severance agreements, severance letters, severance package, termination, vacation, vesting, vesting of stock options, law firm, public interest, monopoly, start own business, voluntary, voluntarily left, mediation, burdensome, excessive, geographical, occupation, practice, territorial, violation, restrictive, proprietary knowledge, scope, narrow, broad, anti-compete, future clients, adequate consideration, competing businesses, confidentiality agreement,  conflict of interest, defense, fraud, consideration, oral representations, written approval, commercial, compensation, clients, contracts, duration, area, successor

My Wife Moved out and Wants a Divorce. Can She Leave and Take Everything?

You may be able to address the issue of assets and debts in court, if your wife has moved out and took all of your marital possessions with her.  When you formally file for divorce, it is the court’s job to assign assets and debts.  It is unlikely that a court would find you entitled to spousal support, but this depends on certain facts of the case.  Among the considerations of a court are what the assets are, what money each party had before the marriage, what each party earns.  It would be beneficial to sit down with an experienced divorce attorney to sort out the facts of the case and to receive adequate advice on how to proceed.

If you have any questions regarding divorce in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

My Wife Moved out and Wants a Divorce. Can She Leave and Take Everything?

You may be able to address the issue of assets and debts in court, if your wife has moved out and took all of your marital possessions with her.  When you formally file for divorce, it is the court’s job to assign assets and debts.  It is unlikely that a court would find you entitled to spousal support, but this depends on certain facts of the case.  Among the considerations of a court are what the assets are, what money each party had before the marriage, what each party earns.  It would be beneficial to sit down with an experienced divorce attorney to sort out the facts of the case and to receive adequate advice on how to proceed.

If you have any questions regarding divorce in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

What Is a Living Trust in Connecticut?

A living trust is a trust is set up by an individual using his or her own property that is active during their lifetime.  The person setting up the trust can use the assets and may revoke the trust and put the property back in their own name at any time.  If the trust remains in effect at the time of the settlor’s death, the remaining assets will pass from the settlor to the remainder beneficiaries of the trust.

If you have any questions related to trusts in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

What Is a Living Trust in Connecticut?

A living trust is a trust is set up by an individual using his or her own property that is active during their lifetime.  The person setting up the trust can use the assets and may revoke the trust and put the property back in their own name at any time.  If the trust remains in effect at the time of the settlor’s death, the remaining assets will pass from the settlor to the remainder beneficiaries of the trust.

If you have any questions related to trusts in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Child Visitation: Privileges and Limitations

Parties entering a custody dispute or a divorce proceeding often inquire about visitation privileges by the so-called “non-custodial parent” – that is, the parent whose home is not the primary residence of the minor child.

Entirely separate from the determination of legal custody (which relates to the parties’ arrangements for major legal decisions to be made for and on behalf of the minor child) is the subject of a visitation arrangement, also sometimes referred to as a “parental access plan.” Regardless of which parent is awarded legal custody, a non-custodial parent has a right to visit with his or her child, although such visitation is not guaranteed to be unfettered and unrestricted in all circumstances.

In the best case scenario, the parties or their lawyers may arrange for “flexible, liberal rights of visitation” for the non-custodial parent, which might mean that the parties work out their access schedule amongst themselves, rather than reducing the intricacies of a schedule to writing. In some instances, the parties might follow a broad-brush, general guideline for visits and holiday scheduling which ebbs and flows according to the parties’ schedules and the child’s activities and needs.

On the other end of the spectrum, visitation by a non-custodial parent can be suspended, temporarily denied, or restricted in some fashion by a court if it is found that a parent’s visitation with a minor child would be adverse to that child’s best interest. If it can be demonstrated in a court of law that a child’s personal safety, physical, mental, or emotional well-being, would be negatively and seriously impacted by visitation with a parent, it is likely that such a parent’s visitation will be severely limited, if not suspended entirely.

However, any restriction of a parent’s ability to spend quality time with his or her child is not taken lightly – not by attorneys, and not by the courts. Before taking such drastic measures, courts will look for compelling, factual predicates based on very specific, presently existing circumstances. Before any type of restriction on visitation, a non-custodial parent has a right to a full evidentiary hearing, an opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses, and a chance to argue to a court that the custodial parent has not established that continued, unlimited visitation would be injurious to the minor child’s best interests.

There are limited situations in which courts deem it appropriate to deny visitation entirely; others in which visitation is restricted in time, place, or manner; still others in which visitation is required to be supervised by a third party, such as a family member or an independent agency.

Obviously, acts or omissions by the non-custodial parent which have directly impacted the child (such as cases of physical abuse, or outright neglect for the child) are looked at most critically and could potentially result in the most drastic of remedies to protect a minor child.

Of course, there are certain other factors which could – in isolated cases – result in restricted visitation by a non-custodial parent. Violence or the threat of violence on the part of the non-custodial parent will be considered as an important factor, provided the evidence offered is competent and survives judicial scrutiny. In very extreme cases only, a mental illness or a psychiatric condition could impact visitation time, but only where it is established, proven, and accepted by a court that there would be harm to the child as a result of the illness if visitation were to take place.

More commonly, issues concerning substance and/or alcohol abuse could and may impact visitation by a non-custodial parent, especially where the behavior is found to be likely to jeopardize a minor child’s welfare. Even in these cases, with the best interests of the child in mind, courts are likely to favor a continued, healthy and loving relationship between the minor child and his or her non-custodial parent, provided that the visitation environment is such that the child will not be harmed or put at risk.

Whether a visitation arrangement will be “flexible and liberal” or heavily regulated is dependent on the factual circumstances of each case, the weight of the evidence, the credibility of the parties and their witnesses, and what is determined by a court to be the best interests of the minor child or children. A legal advisor in this area is challenged not merely to advance a client’s desires, but to simultaneously consider and protect the welfare of the minor child (and the parent-child relationship) when advising his or her client.

Any questions about this posting or confidential inquiries concerning the subject matter, may be directed to Attorney H. Daniel Murphy at hdmurphy@mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading

Family Law Update: Postnuptial Agreements Now Valid and Enforceable in Connecticut

Upon beginning an action for a divorce, many people will disclose to their lawyers that the parties had already contemplated the end of their marriage, sometimes many years before. More often than one would guess, the parties had even mapped out this projected end to their relationship with an agreement written during the marriage itself – maybe hammered out on the family computer, or perhaps scribbled on a restaurant napkin – which was intended by the parties to govern the terms of any divorce that would loom in the future.

With a waiver of alimony, a promise to exclude inheritance proceeds, or a pledge to leave the marital home – an intended postnuptial agreement could be as flexible and varied as the complex circumstances of the marriage itself. However, unlike their premarital cousins (agreements executed before marriage are governed both Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-36b et seq. and controlling precedent), postnuptial agreements had not been officially recognized by the Connecticut Supreme Court and the prospects of their enforceability at trial was nebulous at best.

In the recent decision of Bedrick v. Bedrick (SC 18568, 200 Conn. 691, decided April 26, 2011), the Connecticut Supreme Court has for the first time set forth parameters to test the enforceability of postnuptial agreements, noting that “we must now consider what standards govern their enforcement. Neither the legislature nor this court has addressed this question.” Bedrick, at 699.

Addressing first the question of whether postnuptial agreements are contrary to public policy, the Supreme Court concluded in the negative. While historically, the Court had determined that prenuptial agreements (as an example) were generally held to violate public policy if they promoted, facilitated, or provided an incentive for separation or divorce” (citing McHugh v. McHugh, 181 Conn. 482, 488-89 (1980)), it has been more recently decided that “private settlement of the financial affairs of estranged marital partners is a goal that courts should support rather than undermine” (see Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 221 (1991)). The Bedrick court now opined that “postnuptial agreements may also encourage the private resolution of family issues. In particular, they may allow couples to eliminate a source of emotional turmoil – usually, financial uncertainty – and focus instead on resolving other aspects of the marriage that may be problematic.” Bedrick, at 698.

In this case of first impression, the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged the heightened scrutiny that must be applied to a trial judge’s review of a contract between already married persons, noting that “spouses do not contract under the same conditions as either prospective spouses or spouses who have determined to dissolve their marriage.” In its analysis, the Court points out that already married spouses are “less cautious” in a contractual relationship with one another than they would be as prospective spouses, and similarly, are “certainly less cautious” with one another than they would be with an ordinary contracting party. “With lessened caution comes greater potential for one spouse to take advantage of the other.” Id, at 703.

As such, the law now requires trial courts to enforce a postnuptial agreement only if it complies with applicable contract principles (including the element of consideration, or in layman’s terms, the “give and take” in any contractual arrangement), and if the terms of the agreement are both fair and equitable at the time of execution and if those terms are not unconscionable at the time of dissolution of the marriage. To determine whether terms are “fair and equitable” at the time of execution, a court will look to whether the agreement was made voluntarily, without any undue influence, fraud, coercion, or duress. In addition, as with prenuptial agreements, there must be a factual finding that each spouse was given full, fair, and reasonable disclosure of all property, assets, financial obligations, and income of the other spouse when entering into the contract.

Importantly also, the Court further held that “unfairness or inequity alone does not render a postnuptial agreement unconscionable; spouses may agree on an unequal distribution of assets at dissolution.” Id, at 706. Trial courts are charged with applying a “totality of the circumstances” approach to determining the fairness and equity of enforcing a postnuptial agreement.

With this significant legal decision now available as a roadmap for divorce litigants and their counsel, it is critical now as always that you consult with a knowledgeable and experienced family law attorney in determining your rights relating to an impending divorce. Any questions about this posting or confidential inquiries concerning the subject matter may be directed to Attorney H. Daniel Murphy at hdmurphy@mayalaw.com.

________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading

Not So Fast: Connecticut Courts Consider Length of Marriage – Not Courtship or Cohabitation – When Determining Awards in Divorce

At the outset of a divorce proceeding, many clients will ask what they might expect from a court – or in a settlement agreement – in connection with alimony or the division of marital assets. One of many statutory factors a court may consider in fashioning support orders or property distribution is the length of the parties’ marriage. See C.G.S. § 46b-81, 82. With increasing frequency over the past several decades, however, many parties may enter a divorce proceeding with a significant period of time before the marriage during which the parties lived together as unmarried people – sharing home expenses, purchasing assets together, and accumulating marital wealth (or debts). The common expectation is that a judge would consider not just the length of the parties’ marriage, but also the length of time they lived together as unmarried people when determining what awards would be appropriate in a divorce. The law, however, takes a sharply different view.

Like many other states, Connecticut does not recognize common-law marriage as a matter of public policy. Indeed, the law “has been construed to require the marriage contract to be entered into before authorized persons and with certain formalities which the state has prescribed.” Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 593 (1972). Although two persons might cohabit and conduct themselves as a married couple, the law of this state neither grants to nor imposes upon them marital status. McAnerney v. McAnerney, 165 Conn. 277 (1973). Cohabitation by unmarried individuals does not in and of itself create any legal or support obligations. Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333 (1987).

Given the clear distinction in the common law between marriage and cohabitation, and in awarding greater rights and protections to people who make the formal legal commitment of marriage, the Supreme Court has determined that it would be incongruous for a divorce court, when entertaining financial orders, to take into account a period of premarital cohabitation as an additional equitable consideration. Loughlin v. Loughlin, 280 Conn. 632 (2006).

In other words, neither party in a divorce action may seek additional protections, rights, or awards from the court based simply on the length of time the parties had lived together prior to their marriage. Nevertheless, the Loughlin holding has left a window of opportunity open – however narrow – which might allow a court to consider “events” that occurred during the period of cohabitation as “indirectly” bearing on other statutory criteria for awards of support and equitable distribution (such as the health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, and employability of the parties). Only a court’s strict consideration of premarital cohabitation as part of the “length of marriage” in a dissolution action is improper and prohibited by law.

In the event that your marriage was preceded by a significant period of premarital cohabitation, you should consult with a knowledgeable and experienced attorney to determine your rights in a divorce action. Any questions about this posting or confidential inquiries concerning the subject matter may be directed to Attorney H. Daniel Murphy at hdmurphy@mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading

College Expenses and Divorce

Going through a divorce is often a very emotional and overwhelming experience, often complicated by motions, discovery, court appearances and negotiations. By the end of the mandatory “cooling off” or pendente lite phase (Latin for “while the action is pending”), one may find himself or herself confused and eager to resolve the case. When considering the terms of a potential divorce settlement involving minor children, it is very important to keep future college expenses in mind. If overlooked, it may be very difficult or impossible to obtain contribution from a former spouse for books, tuition and/or living expenses should your child choose to attend college. There are various ways this issue can be addressed, and for a complete understanding, some fundamental information is useful.

Generally speaking, a divorce is typically resolved in one of two ways. The first is utilized when, despite efforts to come to a fair resolution, the parties are unable to agree on custody, visitation, child support, alimony, and/or the division of assets. When one or more of those aspects of the divorce remain in dispute, a trial will be necessary to obtain a final judgment. After hearing evidence and considering each party’s case, the Court will decide the terms of the divorce and enter orders accordingly. However, where parties are able to reach an agreement, the Court may rely on the terms of that agreement and enter orders in accordance therewith. Regardless of which avenue is taken, final court orders must ultimately be entered to formalize the dissolution of the marriage and define the terms of the divorce.

Though a divorce becomes “final” upon judgment, often orders require modification due to changes in circumstances which occur after the marriage is officially dissolved. Examples include modifying child support and/or alimony due to a change in one or both parties’ financial circumstances, or modifying custody or visitation due to changes in the characteristics of the parties’ home, work schedules or living conditions. Other times, it is necessary to add orders that simply were not ripe for adjudication at the time the divorce was obtained. Orders entered after a divorce becomes final are referred to as “post judgment” orders.

In Connecticut, educational support orders are governed by Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-56c. This statute authorizes the Courts to enter orders defining how the parties will handle their children’s “necessary educational expenses.” By statute, necessary educational expenses include room, board, dues, tuition, fees, registration and application costs up to the amount charged by the University of Connecticut for a full-time, in-state student at the time the child registers. That being said, parents can agree to increase the limit beyond the amount charged by the University of Connecticut if they choose. The educational support order may include the cost of books and medical insurance for the child as well. An educational support order is limited to four full academic years at an institution of higher education or a private occupational school for the purpose of obtaining a bachelors or other type of undergraduate degree, or vocational instruction.

Educational support may be handled at the time of the divorce or post judgment. When handled at the time of the divorce, the parties simply include in their separation agreement a provision outlining in detail how they will divide necessary educational expenses. As children are often young during the divorce and the parties’ circumstances at the time the child will be ready to attend college are unforeseeable, this issue is not always ripe for consideration at the time of the dissolution. In such cases, the parties may wish to defer the issue until the child is older. It is very important to note that if the parties choose to do so, they must include in their separation agreement a provision expressly requesting that the Court retain jurisdiction over this issue. If the parties fail to do so, the Court will not allow either party to request its involvement in the future.

Assuming the parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction over educational support, either may come back to Court at the appropriate time to request a post judgment educational support order. Once the post judgment action is commenced- as with the divorce itself- the parties may resolve the issue by agreement or request a hearing. Important to note is that whether the order is entered at the time of the divorce or post judgment, the Court must find that it is more likely than not the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education or private occupational school if the family remained intact. The parties may stipulate to this fact in an agreement. If a post judgment hearing is required, the Court will make that determination and by considering specific evidence including the parents’ income and assets, the reasonableness of the higher education considering the child’s academic record and financial resources available, as well as the child’s preparation for, aptitude for and commitment to higher education.

Attorney DeMeola in Maya Murphy’s Westport office. He welcomes inquiries and can be reached by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at mdemeola@mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading