Lamadeleine v. Lamadeleine, No. Fa-96-0135344s (Oct. 18, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Lamadeleine v. Lamadeleine, No. Fa-96-0135344s (Oct. 18, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14367-k, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 559

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1999

DocketNo. FA-96-0135344S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14367-k (Lamadeleine v. Lamadeleine, No. Fa-96-0135344s (Oct. 18, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lamadeleine v. Lamadeleine, No. Fa-96-0135344s (Oct. 18, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14367-k, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 559 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Memorandum This matter is a post judgment matter for contempt for failure to pay alimony and defendant's motion for modification. The court has reviewed the evidence pertaining to both motions, finds the defendant to be $2,775.00 dollars in arrears on the court ordered alimony. The court finds the defendant is in contempt but also finds that the arrearage is due to the defendant having lost his employment. The defendant is presently receiving unemployment compensation in the amount of $309.00 per week net, down from his previous employment earnings of $975.00 per week net. The defendant, in addition, has had to pay $1,373.00 by way of judgment in favor of Sears Roebuck Co. which obligation the plaintiff was ordered to pay by Doherty, J. in the memorandum of decision dated September 3, 1998. The defendant has claimed that he should receive credit for this sum against any sum due the plaintiff since the Sears Roebuck Co., bill was the obligation of the plaintiff and she by filing for bankruptcy caused that burden to fall on the defendant. The court cannot credit the $1,373.00 judgment against the arrearage due the plaintiff. The court having reviewed the case of Lesser v. Lesser,16 Conn. App. 513 (1988), finds that in this case this obligation was a property settlement. Plaintiff's bankruptcy extinguished the obligation to hold the defendant harmless for debts listed on her financial affidavit.

Accordingly the court cannot credit that sum against the alimony arrearage. The court finds a substantial change in circumstances. Defendant's alimony order is reduced to $20.00 weekly with $5.00 per week on the arrearage until paid. The defendant is ordered to notify the plaintiff within 5 days of having obtained employment. The order herein is without prejudice to the plaintiff to move for modification upward upon the defendant's re-employment.

The court finds the contempt is not willful, accordingly awards the plaintiff the costs for filing the contempt motion. The claim for counsel fees is denied.

KOCAY, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Memorandum This matter is a post judgment matter for contempt for failure to pay alimony and defendant's motion for modification. The court has reviewed the evidence pertaining to both motions, finds the defendant to be $2,775.00 dollars in arrears on the court ordered alimony. The court finds the defendant is in contempt but also finds that the arrearage is due to the defendant having lost his employment. The defendant is presently receiving unemployment compensation in the amount of $309.00 per week net, down from his previous employment earnings of $975.00 per week net. The defendant, in addition, has had to pay $1,373.00 by way of judgment in favor of Sears Roebuck Co. which obligation the plaintiff was ordered to pay by Doherty, J. in the memorandum of decision dated September 3, 1998. The defendant has claimed that he should receive credit for this sum against any sum due the plaintiff since the Sears Roebuck Co., bill was the obligation of the plaintiff and she by filing for bankruptcy caused that burden to fall on the defendant. The court cannot credit the $1,373.00 judgment against the arrearage due the plaintiff. The court having reviewed the case of Lesser v. Lesser,16 Conn. App. 513 (1988), finds that in this case this obligation was a property settlement. Plaintiff's bankruptcy extinguished the obligation to hold the defendant harmless for debts listed on her financial affidavit.

Accordingly the court cannot credit that sum against the alimony arrearage. The court finds a substantial change in circumstances. Defendant's alimony order is reduced to $20.00 weekly with $5.00 per week on the arrearage until paid. The defendant is ordered to notify the plaintiff within 5 days of having obtained employment. The order herein is without prejudice to the plaintiff to move for modification upward upon the defendant's re-employment.

The court finds the contempt is not willful, accordingly awards the plaintiff the costs for filing the contempt motion. The claim for counsel fees is denied.

KOCAY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14367-k, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamadeleine-v-lamadeleine-no-fa-96-0135344s-oct-18-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack