Category Archives: Divorce

Client Alert: Trusts and Divorce ~ A Recent Connecticut Appellate Decision

Posted on by

Recent Connecticut appellate decisions continue to shape how courts view trusts in the context of divorce.

In Netter v. Netter (2025), the Connecticut Appellate Court addressed whether certain trust interests may be considered when dividing property in a dissolution action. The case discusses multiple trusts created at different times and under different circumstances, including both family‑created trusts and trusts established by one spouse during the marriage.

The court emphasized that not all trusts are treated the same. In particular, the decision highlights the importance of how and when a trust is created, who controls distributions, and whether a beneficiary has a legally enforceable right to receive trust assets. The court also discussed the role of Connecticut public policy when trusts are formed during a marriage and funded with marital assets.

The ruling provides useful clarification in an area that frequently arises in high‑asset divorces and estate planning discussions. Because trust structures and family circumstances vary widely, the treatment of trusts in divorce remains highly fact‑specific. Individuals who have questions about how a trust may be viewed in a Connecticut dissolution proceeding should seek advice tailored to their particular situation.

This alert is not intended to provide legal advice or constitute an attorney-client relationship. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
Citation: Netter v. Netter, 235 Conn. App. 774 (2025)

Child Support vs. Extracurricular Activities

Posted on by

Court orders requiring parents to pay for extracurricular activities fall within Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-56.  These orders are separate from Child Support orders.

Child Support orders do not encompass any and all payments to be made by a noncustodial parent.   Child Support orders do include unreimbursed medical related expenses, and work-related childcare expenses, which will be shared as a percentage of the parties’ net income (accounting for the child support payment).

Connecticut Child Support guidelines neither list nor define specific expenditures that comprise child support, but it is clear that such general categories of basic needs, like food, housing, clothing and transportation are fairly considered a part of child support.

For more discussion, see the Connecticut Appellate Court’s decision known as Marcus vs. Cassara, AC 45592.

Let us help you represent yourself!

Posted on by

In our opinion, it is always preferable to have an attorney for “full representation”. Custody and divorce cases are lawsuits. A complaint is filed in the Superior Court. If an agreement is not reached, the case will go to trial. The rules of evidence apply. There are ‘discovery’ obligations, and complicated statutes and judicial decisions (“caselaw”) to be aware of. Mistakes can be costly even if an agreement is reached, and there are times when clearly the parties to the case should have full legal counsel. An attorney who files a ‘full’ appearance will go to court for all court events such as “short calendar” proceedings (which are rarely ‘short’), hearings, settlement conferences, and trial.

However the cost to hire full legal counsel in a custody or divorce case can be prohibitively expensive for some individuals. Some parties return to court repeatedly, making the process expensive. Each court appearance usually results in hourly billing. A party does not have direct control over the number of court appearances required, because their spouse may file multiple motions during the course of the proceeding, or even post-judgment. The party can feel that attorney fees are not being controlled, yet the attorney is ethically obligated to appear in court for each event, prepare for the event, and provide competent representation.

Consider these options when faced with a divorce or custody case:

1) Will a motion for attorney fees be successful? The motion can be filed, to request that the Court order the other party, to pay your attorney fees.

2) Is borrowing funds for an attorney an option? The Automatic Orders prohibit incurring unreasonable debt. These orders prohibit ‘encumbering’ property but they provide an exception for “reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with [the] action”.

3) Is “Standby Counsel” appropriate? When an attorney is hired as standby counsel, the attorney typically will not enter an “Appearance” in the case. Sometimes the attorney may file a “Limited Appearance”. When an attorney is hired as Standby Counsel, the individual represents himself or herself in Court. The attorney however can be retained to meet with the client from time to time, such as to give advice relating to procedural or other issues in the case. The attorney can review proposals that the parties might agree to among themselves. The attorney might assist with the preparation of certain court motions.

We encourage you to consider “Standby Counsel” if you feel you cannot afford an attorney.

Marder, Roberson & DeFelice Law Offices, LLC
76 South Frontage Road
Vernon, CT 06066
Email: [email protected]

Remember the Automatic Court Orders in Connecticut Divorce / Custody Cases

Posted on by

If you file a divorce, custody, or legal separation complaint in Connecticut (or if you are served with such a complaint), you must read and understand, the “Automatic Court Orders”.

What are Pendente Lite Orders?

Pendente Lite (a Latin term) refers to those orders that may go into effect ‘while the action is pending’, or ‘during the proceeding or litigation’. You may file a motion or motions (separately from the divorce or custody complaint), for pendente lite relief. This form of relief does not come ‘automatically’; you must ask for this relief by filing motions in court.

The reason why someone would pursue pendente lite orders, is that it could take many months to go to final judgment. A party to a divorce or custody case, may not want to wait many months to ask for specific orders, such as:

  • Orders for child support or alimony;
  • Custody and visitation orders;
  • Other financial orders such as who is required to pay the mortgage, utilities, and household expenses; or
  • Other temporary orders, or emergency orders, to address a party’s unique situation.

What are the Automatic Orders?

The Automatic Court Orders will apply to both parties, without the need for filing for specific ‘pendente lite’ relief. They apply to the Plaintiff when the complaint is signed, and they apply to the Defendant once the Defendant is served with the Complaint, and Notice of Automatic Orders. It is crucial to read them, and understand them, any time you are a party to a divorce, custody, or legal separation case.

Some Automatic Court Orders affect only cases involving children. For example:

“Neither party shall permanently remove the minor child or children from the state of Connecticut, without written consent of the other or order of a judicial authority.” Further, the Automatic Orders state that “If the parents or minor children live apart during this proceeding, they shall assist their children in having contact with both parties, which is consistent with the habits of the family, personally, by telephone, and in writing. This provision shall not apply if and to the extent there is a prior, contradictory order of a judicial authority”. If you think that complying with the Automatic Orders will be harmful to a child, or is not in a child’s best interests, you should consult with an attorney to understand your legal rights and options.

Other Automatic Court Orders apply in all divorce cases (regardless of whether there are children). For example:

“Neither party shall conceal any property”, and “Neither party shall change the beneficiaries of any life insurance policies, and each party shall maintain the existing life insurance, automobile insurance, homeowners or renters insurance policies in full force and effect.”

There are sixteen (16) Automatic Court Orders and they should be read carefully by all parties. As stated in the orders: “Failure to obey these orders may be punishable by contempt of court. If you object to or seek modification of these orders during the pendency of the action, you have the right to a hearing before a judge within a reasonable time.”

The Automatic Court Orders are available at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/fm158.pdf

Husband’s digital voice activated audio recording of Wife, precluded from evidence.

Posted on by

Was the Audio Recording Obtained Illegally? Is it Admissible?

Litigants, including parties to a divorce, often ask if they can record a party or witness, in a dispute. The recording will not be admissible in a Connecticut court, if it is obtained illegally. Connecticut General Statute §52-184a provides: “No evidence obtained illegally by the use of any electronic device is admissible in any court of this state.” Unauthorized access to a “computer system” is also a crime in Connecticut, and therefore could be precluded. See CGS 53a-251. The prohibition on use of illegally obtained recordings in court (i.e. trials or hearings), has been extended to their use at depositions.

In Simonson vs. Simonson, FA15-6025703, the Court precluded the use of an audio recording. The husband recorded his wife’s telephone conversation by placing a recording device behind the driver’s side seat of a truck, that the husband owned. When the Wife spoke to a non-party on the telephone, her voice (but not the voice of the non-party) was secretly recorded. The husband’s attorney attempted to play the recording during a deposition, but he was precluded from doing so, and the recording was further precluded from being used at trial.

A different result may have been obtained, if the recording was not a telephone conversation, and if at least one party to the conversation consented to the recording. Connecticut judges frequently admit into evidence, recordings made by a spouse of the other spouse, when the recording spouse was present and a party, to the recorded conversation.

“Eavesdropping” in Connecticut is a Class D felony, punishable by a prison term of one to five years, and a fine of up to $5,000. However civil / family court judges may exclude illegally obtained evidence, even if a person is not arrested or convicted of a crime.

A person commits the crime of eavesdropping “when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation”.

General Statutes §52-187(a) provides:

“Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs shall not be deemed “wiretapping”. (2) “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. (3) “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law. For purposes of this section, “cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio telephones.

General Statutes §52-570(d)(a) provides:

No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.

Committing a “computer crime” can also result in preclusion of evidence. See C.G.S. §53a-251(b) (“unauthorized access to a computer system”):

(1) A person is guilty of the computer crime of unauthorized access to a computer system when, knowing that he is not authorized to do so, he accesses or causes to be accessed any computer system without authorization.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for unauthorized access to a computer system that: (A) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer system, or a person empowered to license access thereto, had authorized him to access; (B) the person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer system, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have authorized him to access without payment of any consideration; or (C) the person reasonably could not have known that his access was unauthorized.

The Memorandum of Decision in the Simonson case is available here:

https://docs.google.com/a/joeldefelice.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=am9lbGRlZmVsaWNlLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6M2FmMDZhNTU1MDZjNTA1OQ

Increase in income, standing alone, does not justify modifying alimony

Posted on by

Parties to a divorce judgment agreed on an alimony award of $15,000. per month plus 25 percent of any bonus income. Approximately 10 years later, the former wife / recipient of alimony, sought to increase alimony based on two grounds: i) the former husband’s income increased, and ii) her own medical costs increased.

The trial judge increased the alimony award from $15,000 to $40,000 per month, plus 25 percent of any bonus income received. (The trial court’s decision was not based on increased medical costs, but it was based on an increase in the paying spouse’s income.) The trial court did not address the issue of whether “exceptional circumstances” justified the increase.

The decision was appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that an increase in the supporting spouse’s income, standing alone, ordinarily will not justify the granting of a motion to modify an alimony award.

The case is Dan vs. Dan, 315 Conn. 1 (2014), and it is available here:
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROCR/CR315/315CR103.pdf

 

 

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.

What is the alimony “formula” in Connecticut?

Posted on by

Connecticut does not use a formula, or “guideline” approach to alimony. Instead Connecticut law provides for statutory factors, that must be considered, when awarding or modifying alimony. After considering the criteria below, governing Connecticut alimony, do you think a formulaic / guideline approach would be beneficial? Or do you support the flexibility of the current system?

Connecticut’s flexible alimony criteria:

“In general the same sorts of [criteria] are relevant in deciding whether the decree may be modified as are relevant in making the initial award of alimony. They have chiefly to do with the needs and financial resources of the parties . . . More specifically, these criteria, outlined in General Statutes 46b-82, require the court to consider the needs and financial resources of each of the parties and their children, as well as such factors as the causes for the dissolution of the marriage and the age, health, station, occupation, employability and amount and sources of income of the parties. (Citations omitted; quotations omitted.) Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 738, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994).

“Court decisions construing the alimony and property division statutes emphasize the responsibility of the trial court to consider all of the evidence, weigh all of the statutory factors, and then to place the weight on each factor that the court deems most fair and appropriate under the particular circumstances of each case. “While the trial court must consider the delineated statutory criteria, no single criterion is preferred over the others, and the court is accorded wide latitude in varying the weight placed upon each item under the peculiar circumstances of each case.” Carpenter v. Carpenter, 188 Conn. 736, 740-41, 453 A.2d 1151 (1982). The court is not obligated to make express findings on each and “is not required to give equal weight to each of the specified criteria it considers in determining its award, nor is any single criterion preferred over the others.” Graham v. Graham, 25 Conn.App. 41, 45, 592 A.2d 424 (1991). The weight to place on each factor depends on the circumstances of each case. (Citation omitted.) Moreover, the statutory factors for awarding alimony or assigning property are not exclusive, and the court may consider other equitable factors in either. Smith v. Smith, 249 Conn. 265, 284, 752 A.2d 1023 (1999). Robinson v. Robinson, 187 Conn. 70, 72, 444 A.2d 234 (1982). Werkhoven v. Werkhoven, No. FA094011324S (Feb. 17, 2011) (Frazzini, J.)

What is “Short Calendar” in Connecticut Superior Court?

Posted on by

UPDATE: August 26, 2016: The Family Short Calendar procedure at the Tolland Judicial District, 69 Brooklyn Street, Rockville, has changed effective October 3, 2016. All matters that appear on this calendar are deemed ready. Ready markings are no longer required. A marking is only necessary if the party who filed the motion wishes the matter to be marked off. If the party who filed the motion does not appear, the court may deem oral argument waived and the motion may be denied by the court. If the party who did not file the motion does not appear, the court may deem oral argument waived and may grant the relief requested in the motion. The Family Short Calendar in the Tolland Judicial District, will be called at 9:30 a.m.

 

The “Short Calendar” procedure can be confusing to both Connecticut attorneys, and self-represented (“pro se”) parties. To make matters more complicated, customs and procedures may vary between courts.

Short Calendar procedures apply to both civil and family court cases. In Rockville Court (Tolland County, Connecticut) Short Calendar is held on Monday morning each week, except when Monday is a holiday. Those who have filed motions in Family (divorce and custody) cases, will have to follow the Short Calendar procedure to mark their case “Ready” (or “Take Papers” if applicable, for certain motions), and notify the opposing party they intend to proceed. This is done several days in advance of court, during the allowed ‘marking period’.

In Family Cases, motions will be marked “ready” again at the 9:30 am calendar call on Monday morning. Parties should sign in with Family Relations as soon as possible, as there is usually a long wait. Parties will need to first meet with Family Relations Officers, who will try to help the parties resolve their disagreements. If an agreement is reached, it needs to be drafted. The parties will sign the agreement, and bring the written agreement into Court. Newer files get scanned and e-filed, before going into court, at the Court Services Center. The judge will canvas the parties (i.e. ask if the parties believe the agreement is fair and equitable, and in the best interests of the minor child(ren), and review the details of the agreement with the parties), before the judge enters the agreement as an Order of the Court.

Parties should come prepared to Family Short Calendar with Financial Affidavits, and supporting documents (i.e. pay stubs). They may also wish to prepare Proposed Orders, and prepare exhibits should the case have to go before a Judge, for a decision. If a party has an Attorney, then the Attorney will accompany the party through the process. The court might not permit lengthy evidence on a Short Calendar date. It is possible that if an agreement is not reached, the case will be scheduled for a “Special Assignment”, which could be days or weeks later, depending on the court’s availability and urgency of the issues.

The procedures above may vary from court to court, and may be modified from time to time by the presiding judge, or new court rules.

The process for civil cases, is also quite different. In civil cases, many motions are not ‘arguable as of right’ and there are special procedures to request oral argument. You need to be familiar with the Connecticut Practice Book (“Rules of Court”), as well as the substantive law, including Rules of Evidence, that will apply to your legal issues.

Speak with an attorney who is familiar with the Short Calendar procedures in your jurisdiction, to address the specific circumstances of your case.

A Short Calendar and Marking Process Quick Reference Guide, published by the judicial branch, is available at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/super/e-services/efile/shortcal_quickref.pdf

Restraining Orders & Protective Orders

Posted on by

We are often asked about Restraining Orders, and Protective Orders.

The information below, is available on the Connecticut judicial website: https://www.jud.ct.gov/statistics/prot_restrain/

Every case is fact specific. If you are involved in a proceeding that involves either a civil Restraining Order, or a criminal Protective Order, we strongly advise you to speak with an experienced attorney.

Protective / Restraining Order Glossary

  • Family Violence Protective Order (section 46b-38c of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an order that is issued at the time of arraignment during a criminal proceeding. Usually these orders are recommended by either the family relations office or in some cases the state’s attorney’s office. These orders are usually in effect from the date they are issued until the criminal case is sentenced and/or disposed of. In some cases a protective order can be removed prior to the underlying case being settled.
  • Standing Criminal Restraining Order (section 53a-40e of the Connecticut General Statutes is an order that is issued usually at the end of a criminal case. These are lifetime orders and remain in effect until further order of the court. This order type is generally issued when it is a more severe criminal case.
  • Restraining Order Application (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an application for a restraining order ex parte (immediate). It is given out at the clerk’s office to people who come in for relief from abuse in family cases. A Judge reviews the application and affidavit, and decides whether or not to issue a restraining order relief from abuse. If one is issued, the application is then updated to an ex parte restraining order. The Judge can also deny the ex parte relief and issue an Order for Hearing and Notice Summons.
  • Ex Parte Restraining Order (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an order issued by the family court when someone has completed the restraining order application. The Judge has reviewed the application and affidavit, and issues a temporary ex parte restraining order. A hearing date is scheduled, and the respondent must be notified. Generally speaking, this order is good for for 14 days, or until the date of the hearing. (Hearings can be scheduled before the 14-day time limit).
  • Restraining Order After Hearing (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is issued after a hearing on an ex parte restraining order, or an Order for Hearing and Notice Summons. Again, this order type is issued out of the family court. Generally speaking, it is effective for 6 months from the date of the hearing. A victim/applicant can request that the restraining order after the hearing be extended when the 6 months is about to run out. They must file a motion to extend and the respondent must again get notice.

Revised Child Support Guidelines, Effective July 1, 2015

Posted on by

Connecticut has revised the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines, effective July 1, 2015. The revised guidelines are available at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/ChildSupport/CSguidelines.pdf

For more information, please don’t hesitate to call us, and ask to speak with one of our attorneys.