Posts tagged with "financial affidavit"

In Divorce Action, Court Penalizes Husband for Deceptive Conduct During the Discovery Process

Leave a reply
Case Background

In a decision rendered in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, the Court took a hard stance against a husband that dissipated assets, doctored bank statements and intentionally hid accounts during the pendency of his divorce.  The parties were married in India in 2009.  The wife claimed that after moving to the United States, she lived a life of total isolation.  The husband allegedly left for work very early each morning, and returned home late each night, while the wife had no friends and no knowledge of American practices or culture.  The wife further claimed that the husband failed to fulfill her basic needs, such as providing her with food and clothing.

The Court’s Findings

The husband denied the wife’s allegations; however, due to the husband’s conduct during the discovery process, the court found his testimony to be lacking credibility, and ultimately held him responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.  More specifically, the court found that after receiving notice of the pending divorce, the husband withdrew over $100,000.00 from a bank account, transferring the money to an unknown and undisclosed location.  The court ordered the husband to obtain bank account statements demonstrating to where the monies had been transferred, however, he never complied.

The court further found that, while self-represented, the husband provided doctored account statements on which he “whited out” numbers and inserted new ones.  Additionally, during trial, the wife’s attorney revealed that the husband maintained a bank account in New York which he never included on his financial affidavit, and which he claimed under oath did not exist.  The court also found that the husband intentionally got himself fired from a job which was paying him $150,000.00 per year and that, as a result, he was in arrears on his alimony.

Based on the husband’s deceptive conduct and failure to follow court orders, the court awarded the wife lump sum (as opposed to periodic) alimony from his share of the marital estate.  The court also awarded the wife the entirety of several bank/retirement accounts as well as $15,000 in counsel fees.

–

Should you have any questions about divorce proceedings, or family matters in general, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph Maya at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT. He can be reached at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Wife Found in Contempt of Court’s “Automatic Orders”

Leave a reply

In a decision rendered in a dissolution of marriage action, a wife was found in contempt for depriving her husband of information regarding the parties’ two minor children in violation of the court’s “automatic orders.”  In this particular case, the parties were married 1991, and were the parents of two children.  At the time of trial the husband was forty-three years old and in generally good health.  He had an associate’s degree and worked for a supply company earning approximately $51,000 annually.

The wife was also forty-three years old and in generally good health.  Although she stayed home to care for the family for a better part of the marriage, in 1999 she began working as an independent contractor selling kitchen products.  Later, she worked for a local board of education, and at the time of trial, was employed with a local newspaper earning roughly $20,000, plus commission, annually.

The Divorce

During the divorce proceedings, the husband filed a motion for contempt claiming the wife violated the court’s automatic orders in that she left the marital residence with the children and refused to disclose their location.  In reviewing the merits of the husband’s motion, the court noted that in a civil contempt proceeding, the movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a clear and unambiguous court order, and willful noncompliance with that order.  According to the court’s “automatic orders,” entered upon the commencement of every divorce action, neither party is permitted to remove children from the State of Connecticut without prior written consent of the other parent.

Additionally, a party vacating the marital residence with minor children must notify the other parent of the move, and must provide the other parent of an address where the relocated party can be contacted.  Finally, where parents live separate and apart during a divorce proceeding, pursuant to the “automatic orders,” they must assist their children in having contact with both parents.

The Court’s Decision

In this particular case, the court found that because the wife was served in hand with a notice of automatic orders, she clearly knew she had an obligation to inform the husband in writing of any relocation.  The court found that she also knew she had a duty to assist her children in having contact with their father.

Nevertheless, the wife willfully removed the children from the home, and kept their address from the husband absent a valid reason for doing so.  As a result, the husband did not know where the children were living until the day of trial.  The court further found that the wife willfully kept the children from having contact with their father in violation of the court’s clear and unambiguous automatic orders.

–

Our firm in Westport 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.

Should you have any questions regarding automatic court orders, or divorce proceedings in general, please feel free to contact Attorney Joseph Maya, Esq.  He can be reached in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at  JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Court Awards Wife Alimony for a Period of Ten Years with Safe Harbor for Husband Up to $250,000 Annually

Leave a reply

In a dissolution of marriage action pending in the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, the Court awarded the wife unallocated alimony and child support in the amount of $1,000 per week.  The parties were married in 1999 and were the parents of two children, both of whom were minors at the time of trial.  The Husband was thirty-eight years of age, had a degree in engineering, and worked for a family business owned by his father.  The wife was forty years of age.  She did not have a college degree and worked only seven hours per week.

The parties both alleged that the other caused the breakdown of the marriage by abusing drugs and alcohol, although the Court questioned the wife’s credibility on that topic.  The wife also claimed that the husband expressed he wanted to end the marriage because he had met another woman.  Despite the parties’ allegations, however, the Court found them equally at fault for the breakdown of the relationship.

The Trial

At trial, the wife also claimed that the husband underreported his income on his financial affidavit, although the Court noted that she presented no evidence to support the allegation.  The Court ultimately reviewed the parties’ joint tax returns and found that the husband’s gross income at the time of trial was $140,000 per year, exclusive of any bonus and that the wife was earning $100 gross per week.   Based on those figures, the Court determined that the presumptive child support award under the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines was $392 per week.

However, at the parties’ request, the Court entered an unallocated alimony and child support order, awarding the wife $1,000 per week for a period of ten years, with the full amount deductible by the husband and taxable to the wife.  The Court further ordered the husband to pay the wife 50% of his bonus each year within ten days of his receipt of the same.

The Court specified that said sum shall also be paid to the wife as unallocated alimony and child support, and therefore was also deductible by the Husband and taxable to the wife.  The Court allowed the husband a safer harbor up to $250,000 per year, and the wife a safe harbor up to $10,000 per year, thereby precluding future modifications unless and until their respective incomes exceeded the aforementioned amounts.

–

If you have questions regarding alimony or any family law matter, contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.