Click Here For The Best Stamford Family Law Lawyer Directory

Description: Stamford, Connecticut family law lawyer represented the Plaintiff in a divorce

The parties were married in New York in 1995. Three children were born of the marriage. In 2009, the plaintiff commenced the present action, initially seeking a legal separation, but later amending her complaint to request a dissolution of the marriage on the basis that it had broken down irretrievably. The defendant filed an amended answer directed to the plaintiff's original complaint, as well as an amended cross complaint seeking a dissolution of the marriage on the basis that it had broken down irretrievably.

* * *

On the issue of postsecondary educational support, the court cited paragraph 10 of the 2016 stipulation, which provides: ''The parties agree that if the [d]efendant were to have income as well as financial and patrimonial means comparable to the [p]laintiff, the [d]efendant will assume his equal share of the [postsecondary] educational expenses of their children paid by the [p]laintiff. [Subject][3] to the prior, if the [d]efendant were not to pay for those expenses, the [c]ourt shall retain jurisdiction over said issue pursuant to [§ 46b-56c][4] for all of the three . . . children of the marriage.'' (Footnotes added.) The court stated that, although the parties agreed that they did not have comparable incomes, they disputed whether, pursuant to paragraph 10, the court had jurisdiction to enter postsecondary educational support orders. The court determined that both parties had presented reasonable interpretations of paragraph 10, implicitly concluding that

7

the provision was ambiguous. Upon examining the language of paragraph 10 and evidence admitted into the record, the court concluded that it retained jurisdiction regarding postsecondary educational support. The court subsequently scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of postsecondary educational support.

* * *

Legal issue Can the court order postsecondary educational support payments if the parties' incomes are not comparable
according to the terms of their stipulation?

Key Phrases Postsecondary educational support. Marital residence for sale. Motion for contempt. Irretrievable breakdown. Listing price discrepancy.

Outcome: The judgment was reversed only with respect to the award to the plaintiff of $25,000 in postsecondary educational support and the case is remanded with direction to vacate the portion of the July 26, 2022 distribution order reducing the defendant's share of the proceeds from the sale of the parties' marital residence by $25,000 for postsecondary educational support; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: