Maya

Failure to “Check the Box” on EEOC Complaint Bars Employee’s Hostile Work Environment Claim

Joseph C. Maya, Esq. — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:37:21 +0000

In a pro se case decided a few months ago, the United States District Court of Florida granted summary judgment for Target Corp., the employer of the plaintiff, denying the employee’s Title VII claim of hostile work environment for checking the wrong boxes on her EEOC claim.[1] The plaintiff in the case was employed by… Read more

Americans With Disabilities Act

Joseph C. Maya, Esq. — Thu, 16 May 2013 17:03:35 +0000

State, county laws dilute effect of disability rulingThe U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the definition of a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) will have limited use for Westchester employers struggling with the issue, a pair of lawyers specializing in employment law said. That’s because the Empire State defines a “disability” more… Read more

Court Imputes Gross Weekly Income Upon Failure of Disclosure

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:30:45 +0000

In the process of marriage dissolution, it is imperative that each party provide a full and frank disclosure of financial information. Misrepresenting assets and income is “a serious and intolerable dereliction… which goes to the very heart of the proceeding.” Therefore, a court will remain unsympathetic when a party, whose own wrongful conduct limited his or her financial information available for court review, later complains that a later court-calculated monetary award is improper. In a recent divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Danbury at Danbury, in part, had to make an independent determination as to the gross weekly income of a plaintiff, because she was not fully forthcoming in providing the necessary financial information. In this action, the plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married in October 2004, and two minor children were born between them. The marriage broke down irretrievably, and the husband filed for dissolution of the marriage in April 2010. The wife indicated that she had a rental property, but could not testify as to the amount of rental income. Instead, she stated that family members often received the rent money, and they in turn used those monies to pay the mortgage. The court found that it could not rely on the wife’s financial affidavits, as they lacked adequate documentary support. In addition, her claims that her two business ventures received cash income were not substantiated by invoices, written contracts, or leases. As such, the court took it upon itself to calculate the wife’s gross weekly income for use when considering distributions of marital property as well as alimony and child support orders. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm's Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@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 →

Ambiguous Seperation Agreements Lead to Extrinsic Evidence of Intent

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:30:41 +0000

In a recent post-judgment divorce action, the Supreme Court of Connecticut rejected a lower court’s determination that an ambiguous term of a separation agreement was clear and unambiguous. It further found the trial court's exclusion of extrinsic evidence that would establish party intent regarding the meaning of that term was improper. The plaintiff, wife, and the defendant, husband, were divorced in March 1993 after twenty-nine years of marriage. At an uncontested hearing before the trial court, the wife's counsel indicated the parties reached an agreement and requested that it be put on the record orally. The court agreed, and the wife's counsel recited the agreement. It issue on appeal was the language surrounding the alimony award, if there were adjustments in the husband's salary. “In the event that the [husband's] salary shall increase by $100,000 over the current level, then his obligation shall increase by $20,000 to the [wife] at that time.” Two additional provisions followed concerning decreases in salary and modification. However, when the court clerk asked for one of the terms again, the wife's counsel used the word “income” rather than “salary.” There were no definitions set forth regarding the terms used in the agreement. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable under the circumstances and both parties agreed. Neither party asked questions regarding the terms. A trial transcript was ordered and treated as the separation agreement in its entirety: there was no request that only certain portions would be designated as such. The husband made alimony payments based on a percentage of his annual salary. However, beginning in 1996, he started to receive bonuses and stock options, but he continued to make alimony payments based on his just his salary. In December 2001, the wife filed a motion for contempt, arguing that the husband improperly based his alimony payments on his salary only, rather than his income as a whole. The trial court did not allow either party to testify regarding his or her intent or understanding of the agreement at the time they entered into it. It found that the agreement unambiguously linked alimony increases to increases in salary, which did not include bonuses, relying on dictionary definitions of the term “salary.” The court discredited the clerk's inquiry and wife's counsel's response as immaterial, and denied the wife's motion, who immediately appealed. Separation agreements incorporated into dissolution decrees are treated as contracts. The court will look to the language of the agreement to ascertain intent of the parties, using ordinary meaning where it is sensible to do so. Ambiguity is established where its language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. In this event, the courts will allow extrinsic evidence to explain the terms in question. In the context of separation agreements, “salary” does not have a strict or narrow meaning, and courts need to consult the language of the agreement to determine which of differing definitions was intended. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that “salary” was not defined in the agreement, and both “salary” and “income” were used in relation to the husband's alimony obligations. Because the agreement, as read, was incorporated into the judgment, the trial court had no authority to disregard the presence of the term “income” simply because it was prompted by an exchange with the court clerk. There were two plausible interpretations of the word “salary” - with or without bonuses. This left the language of the separation agreement ambiguous, and the trial court erred when it determined that it was instead clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it was also improper for the trial court to exclude the testimony of both parties regarding their intent as to the meaning of “salary” and “income,” since extrinsic evidence is always admissible to explain ambiguity. The case was remanded to pursue this inquiry. Whether advancing or defending a post-judgment motion regarding awards of alimony, assignment of property, and child support, a divorced individual is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm's Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@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 →

Nonmonetary Contributions and the Equitable Distribution of Property

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:53:44 +0000

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq. In matters of marital dissolution, the manner in which property will be divided may appear rather complicated, but the courts have ample statutory guidance from General Statutes § 46b-81. One factor that a court must consider is the “contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in the value of their respective estates.” What, exactly, constitutes a contribution? Must the contributions only be monetary, such as income, or can they be nonmonetary as well? The court in O’Neill v. O’Neill directly considered this issue. In that case, the plaintiff appealed, in part, after the trial court refused to award her a lump sum property settlement. The court determined that the plaintiff “brought nothing to the marriage and contributed little to it.” 13 Conn. App. 300, 307 (1988). However, the plaintiff contested that she contributed significantly to the marriage in nonmonetary forms, such as the care and reading of the minor child and upkeep of the family home. Because the term “contribution” was not clearly defined in the statute, the Appellate Court set out to determine what the legislature intended it to mean. In reviewing transcripts, the court noted that there was no intent to limit the meaning of the word “contribution” to cover only financial contributions to the marriage. Id at 309. One legislator stated, “It does provide that the court look at them not as men and women but as parties and look at their various obligations in their various capacities with respect to earning and all the other aspects that should be considered.” Id at 310. The court additionally noted in Footnote 1 of the opinion that other states specifically require courts to consider nonmonetary contributions of a homemaker spouse when equitably distributing property. Id at 309. With this in mind, the O’Neill court stated:

“A property division out to accord value to those nonmonetary contributions of one spouse which enable the other spouse to devote substantial effort to paid employment which, in turn, enables he family to acquire tangible marital assets. The investment of human capital in homemaking has worth and should be evaluated in a property division incident to a dissolution of marriage. We hold, accordingly, that an equitable distribution of property should take into consideration the plaintiff’s contributions to the marriage, including homemaking activities and primary caretaking responsibilities.”

Id at 311. Because the trial court did not consider the plaintiff’s nonmonetary contributions in its property division determination, it abused its discretion. Subsequent case law in Connecticut continues to echo this holding. In June 2009, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Danbury at Danbury heard a matter seeking dissolution of the parties’ seventeen-year marriage. The plaintiff husband earned substantially more income than the defendant wife, who worked only part-time so as to be able to care for their quadruplet children. In its memorandum of decision, the court specifically noted the O’Neill language before setting out in determining the property distributions. Whether advancing or defending motion regarding awards of alimony, assignment of property, and child support, a divorced individual is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm's Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@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 →

Ever Wonder about Parental Termination, Abandonment, and the Best Interests of the Child?

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:22:59 +0000

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq. The termination of parental rights has been equated to be the civil equivalent of the death penalty. When a court entertains a motion seeking such an action, it partakes in a two-step inquiry: whether, by clear and convincing evidence, one or more statutory grounds for termination exist and termination is in the best interests of the child. In the first part of the inquiry, the court looks to the facts of the case to see whether the party seeking termination has shown at least the presence of one statutory ground for terminating parental rights. One such ground is abandonment, which is constitutes a parent’s “failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.” The court will consider attempts at physical and telephonic contact with the child, whether the parent sent gifts or cards on birthdays and the like, and whether the parent provided any financial support for the child. Sporadic attempts are insufficient to be considered “reasonable.” As to the second part of the inquiry, the court must determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to maintain parental rights or to terminate them. Best interests include “the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of its environment.” The focus is on what’s best for the child, not what is best for the parent. When a court decides one way or the other, it must consider and make factual findings regarding seven factors found in General Statutes § 45a-717(h), including but not limited to the age of the child and the attempts made by a parent to adjust his or her circumstances, conditions, and conduct so as to allow reunification with the child. In a recent post-judgment divorce action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut upheld a lower court’s termination of a father’s parental rights to his son. In that case, the father had exhibited inconsistent, unorthodox, threatening, and criminal behavior that caused the mother to flee the State of New York to hide in Connecticut with their child. The father abused alcohol and drugs, and after their son was born, he would frequently disappear for prolonged periods of time. While the father was incarcerated, he failed to take advantage of established programs that would have allowed him the opportunity to keep phone contact with his son, and even when he had supervised visitation, he frequently missed scheduled visits. Furthermore, during therapy sessions, the son expressed the desire to not have contact with his father, and the apparent need to learn karate to protect him and his mother should the father attempt to harm them. The mother sought termination of the father’s parental rights, and the trial court concluded, based on the evidence presented reflecting the above and additional testimony from therapists, other professionals, and additional witnesses, that termination was proper. It determined by clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned his son, and that reestablishing contact with the child would be detrimental to the child’s well-being and best interests. The father appealed the decision, but the Appellate Court agreed with the lower court’s findings and affirmed judgment. Whether advancing or defending a post-judgment motion regarding parental rights, a parent is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm's Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@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 →

Accepting Recommendation of Guardian Ad Litem Not Abuse of Discretion

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 12:38:24 +0000

In a recent divorce action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut considered whether a trial court abused its discretion in not following the wishes of the minor children in determining what was in their best interests, and for following the recommendation of the appointed guardian ad litem. When a court creates or modifies orders governing child custody and visitation, it is imperative that they place the best interests of the children at the forefront. General Statutes § 46b-56(c) enumerates sixteen non-exclusive factors that a court may consider. The wish of a child is one factor – but it isn’t the only one. In this case, the trial court seriously considered the children’s preferences as part of a larger picture, and elected against honoring them. As the court put it, the middle child “can’t be the one that is making the decisions here.” The Appellate Court found that the trial court properly considered the entirety of the evidence it had on hand and weighed many of the factors governing the best interests of the children. As such, the Appellate Court denied this ground for appeal. A court may appoint a guardian ad litem (guardian) if the court doing so is in the best interests of a minor child. This person is disinterested, or “unbiased by personal interest or advantage,” and as such speaks on behalf of the child’s best interest. Guardians are tasked with a multitude of duties, which include making recommendations to the court through testimony. The credibility and evidentiary effect of this testimony is weighed by the trial court, to which the appellate courts will defer. In this case, the mother admitted that the guardian was a “seasoned veteran and a competent professional [with] no ax to grind.” The attorney for the minor children echoed similar sentiment. When the guardian testified on behalf of the father, all attorneys involved had a fair opportunity to cross-examine her. As the Appellate Court determined, the guardian’s role was to provide a recommendation as a neutral party, to be considered with all other evidence before the court, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by following her recommendation. As such, the court denied this ground for appeal as well. Whether advancing or defending a pendente lite order to modify custody or visitation, a parent is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm's Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@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 →

Pursuing Self-Help Rather Than Court Modification? Expect a Contempt Motion Not In Your Favor

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 12:32:28 +0000

In a recent post-dissolution action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s findings that the defendant was in contempt of a court order. The plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married in 1985 and had four children through the course of their eighteen-year marriage. In September 2003, the parties submitted a separation agreement to the court, which the court incorporated into its judgment for dissolution. In relevant part, the agreement stated that while the husband remained unemployed, he was responsible for one-half the cost of the children’s extracurricular activities. In addition, regardless of his employment status, the husband was required to pay three-quarters the cost of the children’s undergraduate education. In February 2007, the parties entered into a modification agreement, which was approved by the court the following month. However, in December 2007, the wife filed a motion for contempt in which she alleged that the husband failed to comply with several obligations set forth in the separation agreement. The husband argued that because he was employed, the provision regarding extracurricular activities did not apply to him, and he contested the manner in which he was to pay for his children’s college expenses. The trial court ruled in the wife’s favor, and the husband appealed. Separation agreements that are incorporated in a judgment of dissolution are treated as contracts, which must be construed to reflect the parties’ intent. A court will look to the language itself and ascertain a fair and reasonable construction pursuant to common, natural, and ordinary meaning and usage. In reviewing a finding of contempt, an appellate court must first determine whether or not the terms of a court order were sufficiently clear and unambiguous. It must then look for an abuse of discretion by the trial court in issuing or refusing to issue a judgment of contempt. Nonetheless, any order of the court must be followed until it has either been modified or successfully challenged. In this case, the Appellate Court agreed with the husband that the contempt finding with respect to the extracurricular activities was improper. The language of this provision was sufficiently clear – the husband would cover half the cost for as long as the husband remained unemployed. Because this condition was not met, the contempt finding constituted an abuse of discretion. However, the court agreed that the husband was in contempt for failure to pay his portion of college expenses. The husband never disputed this fact, but he insisted that the payments be made from custodial accounts, not from him directly. Self-help does not obviate a finding of contempt, and the Appellate Court did not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Whether advancing or defending a post-judgment motion involving the enforcement or modification of a separation agreement, a divorced individual is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm's Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@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 →

Guardian Ad Litems Can Ditch Case

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 12:22:36 +0000

The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport recently considered a plaintiff’s motion to open, seeking to reopen a stipulation she signed regarding a motion to modify custody. Upon review, the court denied the motion. In 2007, a guardian ad litem (guardian) was appointed to assist the parties in developing a parenting plan. This plan was incorporated in the decree of dissolution the following year. Additional motions were made regarding custody and visitation, which were sporadically certified to the guardian, and in June 2008, a stipulation was signed by both parties, but not by the guardian. In November 2008, a new GAL was appointed by the court, who signed a March 2009 stipulation regarding financial, custody, and visitation matters. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to modify custody, and in September 2010, the parties met with family relations and signed a new stipulation, which the court approved. The plaintiff sought to set aside this stipulation. She argued that the guardian should have received notice of the motion and claimed that the guardian remains in a case until affirmatively removed by the court. She cited a case that gave the court authority to have a guardian remain appointed on a “stand by basis” even after proceedings close. Fish v. Fish, 90 Conn. App. 744. The court distinguished that case, noting that the court in Fish specifically ordered the guardian to remain in the case knowing there would be future need for the guardian. The same could not be said in the present matter: the court noted the passage of time, the unknown availability of the guardian, and malpractice considerations. Whether advancing or defending a post-judgment motion to modify custody or visitation, a divorced parent is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm's Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@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 →

Psychological Well-Being and Happiness of Custodial Parent Important in Determining Best Interests of a Minor Child

J.Maya — Thu, 16 May 2013 11:59:00 +0000

In a recent divorce action, a mother sought leave of court to relocate with her minor child from Connecticut to California against the wishes of the child’s father. This case serves as an ample example that in determining the best interests of a child, the well-being of the parent is of notable consideration. The plaintiff mother and defendant father were married in June 2004 and made plans to have a family together. During the final week of her pregnancy, the mother found out that the father had engaged in a prolonged extramarital affair, which began prior to her becoming pregnant. In the wake of this discovery, the mother heavily relied on her family, who travelled from San Jose, California, to be with her, for emotional support in picking up the pieces of her life following the breakdown of her marriage. The mother had no family and few friends in Connecticut, in stark of the support network she had in San Jose, and she indicated she would be far happier if she were allowed to relocate. The guardian ad litem (guardian) recommended against relocation, citing the child’s very young age (one year) and developmental concerns if he were separated from the father, such as attachment difficulties. However, the court noted that the guardian failed to consider that what is important for the psychological well-being and happiness of the primary custodial parent to relocate is equally important for the wellbeing of the child. This latter view was echoed by the family relations officer. The court agreed that it was essential that the mother be emotionally secure, which would be solidified by a strong family and friend support structure located in San Jose. It further noted, “This child is depending upon his mother being all that she can be and feeling secure as an appropriate and healthy parent for him.” Therefore, the court found it was in the child’s best interests to allow him to relocate with his mother to California. Whether advancing or defending a motion seeking modification of custody, visitation, and child support, a parent is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or JMaya@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 →