<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Maya</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mayalaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mayalaw.com</link>
	<description>Employment, Divorce and General Practice Attorneys</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:31:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Imminent Risk of Irreparable Harm is Requisite for Enforcing Non-Compete Agreements</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/imminent-risk-of-irreparable-harm-is-requisite-for-enforcing-non-compete-agreements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/imminent-risk-of-irreparable-harm-is-requisite-for-enforcing-non-compete-agreements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 18:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>J.Maya</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment & Labor Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adequate consideration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-compete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[area]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempted solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[binding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bonus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bonuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridgeport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burden of proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burdensome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classified information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confidential Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conglomerate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consideration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customary practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Departing employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[direct competitor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure of trade secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer's interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment at will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforceability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[excessive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfield County]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[former employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[franchise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geographic limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geographical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenwich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[headquarters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hiring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imminent risk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[improper competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indirectly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctive relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet-based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job offers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job responsibilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leaving company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management responsibilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manager]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manufacturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maya Murphy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[narrow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[necessary to protect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiating severance packages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Canaan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-compete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-compete covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-disparagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[norwalk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obligations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[optical fibers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oral representations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[P.C.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payroll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[previous employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proprietary knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonableness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonably necessary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refuse to enforce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[represent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[representation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[requisite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research and development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resignation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restricting disclosures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senior management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separation agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEVERANCE LETTERS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[severance package]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similar products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stamford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[start own business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stratford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unreasonable provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vacation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vesting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vesting of stock options]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntarily left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[written approval]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=876</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imminent Risk of Irreparable Harm is Requisite for Enforcing Non-Compete Agreements
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Francavilla, 191 F.Supp.2d 270

	The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) is an international conglomerate that maintains its Optical Component business operations in St. Paul, Minnesota and West Haven, Connecticut.  3M sues the St. Paul facility primarily for research and development while the West Haven office focuses on the manufacturing of optical fibers, one of only a few such facilities in the world.  Mr. Sergio Francavilla worked at the West Haven facility as a Senior Manufacturing Specialist from December 13, 1999 to November 21, 2001.  He oversaw the production of specialty optical fibers and designed a new “Modified Chemical Vapor Deposition Laboratory”.  Additionally, he designed and implemented an improvement project to update the facility’s process that launched in July 2001.
	The parties signed an employment agreement on December 13, 1999 that contained a non-compete clause that he could not work for a company that produced competing products with 3M for a period of two years following termination.  The one exception to this provision was that he could work for a competing company so long as it was a “large conflicting organization whose business is diversified” and he accepted employment in a division that was not in direct competition with 3M.  The employment agreement also contains a non-disclosure clause that prohibits any disclosure of 3M’s confidential information that Mr. Francavilla was privy to during his employment with the company.  A final clause stipulated that any product developed by Mr. Francavilla while a 3M employee was 3M’s exclusive property.
	Mr. Francavilla submitted a resume to StockerYale, a Massachusetts company that manufactures specialty optical fiber products.  StockerYale extended a job offer to him on October 31, 2001 for the position of Director of Manufacturing/Specialty Optical Fiber.  He tendered his resignation and informed his superiors that his last day would be November 23, 2001 and that his new employer was not a direct competitor.  3M sued Mr. Francavilla in federal court however when it learned the identity of his new employer and asked the court to enforce the non-compete agreement.  The court found that Mr. Francavilla had breached the restrictive covenant and granted 3M’s request for an injunction to prevent Mr. Francavilla’s continued employment at StockerYale.
	Mr. Francavilla argued that 3M failed to show that his actions would likely cause irreparable harm to the company.  The court rejected this contention and held that there was a good chance of disclosing former employer’s confidential information when there is “a high degree of similarity between an employee’s former and current employment”.  The imminent risk of irreparable harm is requisite for a court to grant a request for an injunction in connection with a non-compete agreement.  The court felt that there was indeed immediate risk of 3M’s confidential information being disclosed by Mr. Francavilla at his new employer and held that enforcement of the restrictive covenant was necessary to protect that information.  Mr. Francavilla had access to very valuable information during his employment at 3M, specifically in the field of research and development.  The specialty optical fibers industry is quite small and any disclosure of confidential information could prove to be extremely damaging to a company.
	The court also addressed the reasonableness of the time and geographical restrictions, concluding that both were reasonable and enforceable.  Two years is not an overly restrictive limitation and only restricts his employment is a very niche industry, leaving him with many options to pursue a career.  The covenant does restrict Mr. Francavilla’s future employment opportunities but “does not force the defendant [Mr. Francavilla] to sacrifice his livelihood”.
	While the enforceability of a non-compete agreement hinges on the reasonableness of its provisions, the court focused on the requisite imminent risk of irreparable harm to justify granting an injunction.  The court spent a great deal of time discussing this requisite factor in non-compete legal disputes and stated that it is a crucial component when determining whether to grant a request for an injunction.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com. <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/imminent-risk-of-irreparable-harm-is-requisite-for-enforcing-non-compete-agreements/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Francavilla, 191 F.Supp.2d 270 The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) is an international conglomerate that maintains its Optical Component business operations in St. Paul, Minnesota and West Haven, Connecticut.  3M sues the St. Paul facility primarily for research and development while the West Haven office focuses on the&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/imminent-risk-of-irreparable-harm-is-requisite-for-enforcing-non-compete-agreements/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/imminent-risk-of-irreparable-harm-is-requisite-for-enforcing-non-compete-agreements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Retention of Confidential Information is a Clear Breach of Non-Compete According to Connecticut Court</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/retention-of-confidential-information-is-a-clear-breach-of-non-compete-according-to-connecticut-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/retention-of-confidential-information-is-a-clear-breach-of-non-compete-according-to-connecticut-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 17:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>J.Maya</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment & Labor Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adequate consideration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-compete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[area]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempted solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[binding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bonus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bonuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridgeport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burden of proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burdensome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classified information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[client services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing enterprise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confidential Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consideration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customary practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Departing employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[direct competitor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure of trade secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer's interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment at will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforceability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforceable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[excessive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfield County]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[former employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[franchise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geographic limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geographical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenwich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[headquarters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hiring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[improper competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indirectly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctive relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet-based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job offers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job responsibilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leaving company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management responsibilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manager]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maya Murphy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[narrow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiating severance packages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Canaan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-compete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-compete covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-disparagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[norwalk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obligations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oral representations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[P.C.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payroll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[potential clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[previous employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proprietary knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonably necessary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refuse to enforce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[represent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[representation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restricting disclosures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restrictive Covenants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retained information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senior management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separation agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEVERANCE LETTERS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[severance package]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similar products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stamford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[start own business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stratford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terminated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-year period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unreasonable provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vacation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valid agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vesting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vesting of stock options]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntarily left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[written approval]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=920</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Retention of Confidential Information is a Clear Breach of Non-Compete According to Connecticut Court
TyMetrix, Inc. v. Szymonik, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3865

	Mr. Peter Szymonik worked for TyMetrix, Inc. from July 2002 to March 10, 2005 as the Director of Client Services and then as Vice President of Technical Operations beginning in January 2004.  TyMetrix was a technology company that provided web-based systems for its clients in order to implement electronic invoicing, performance management metrics, matter &#038; document management, budgeting, forecasting, and generating other business reports.  The company’s typical clients included the legal departments of Fortune 500 companies, law firms, and insurance companies.  The company operated within the United States but at the time had potential clients in the United Kingdom and Australia.  Mr. Szymonik signed an employment agreement in July 2002 and the document contained several post-employment restrictive covenants.  The non-compete agreement prohibited him from: 1) retaining, using, or disclosing any confidential information, 2) working for a competing enterprise for two years following termination, 3) soliciting TyMetrix’s clients (current or prospective) during those two years, and 4) soliciting or hiring any TyMetrix employee during those two years.
	TyMetrix terminated Mr. Szymonik on March 10, 2005 and he proceeded to form a new company, SpectoWise, Inc., on July 5, 2005 where he served as its president.  In his capacity as the president of the new company, he solicited several TyMetrix clients and employees to join his firm and even hired at least one former TyMetrix employee.  TyMetrix also asserted that Mr. Szymonik retained copies of some of the company’s confidential information.  He claimed that he was only retaining the information to assist in litigation with TyMetrix and had not used its content in connection with the business operations of his new company or for any other personal gain.  TyMetrix sued Mr. Szymonik in Connecticut state court and asked the court to grant injunctive relief by enforcing the provisions of the July 2002 non-compete agreement.
	The court found in favor of TyMetrix, concluded that Mr. Szymonik had indeed breached a valid non-compete agreement, and ordered the covenant enforced.  Mr. Szymonik presented several defenses that the court ultimately rejected in its legal analysis.  He asserted that his new company, SpectoWise, offered very different services from TyMetrix and further argued that the non-compete was unenforceable because the company wrongfully terminated his employment.  As for the claim that the companies were vastly different, the court analyzed SpectoWise’s marketing material and discerned that it was abundantly clear the companies essentially offered the same services to their clients.  Furthermore, the court held that Mr. Szymonik’s termination was not in bad faith and did not go against public policy.  He failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that TyMetrix had violated any “expressed statutory or constitutional provision or judicially derived public policy” when it terminated his employment.  The court also held that Mr. Szymonik’s retention of TyMetrix documents was unlawful on its face and was a clear breach of the non-compete agreement.  It was irrelevant why Mr. Szymonik retained the documents because the mere fact that he still possessed the confidential information was a violation of the employment agreement.
	The court’s legal analysis of the dispute indicated that there was in fact a breach of the non-compete agreement and that TyMetrix was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.  These two factors led the court to find in favor of the employer (TyMetrix) and ordered the enforcement of the restrictive covenant that the parties had executed in July 2002.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com. <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/retention-of-confidential-information-is-a-clear-breach-of-non-compete-according-to-connecticut-court/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[TyMetrix, Inc. v. Szymonik, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3865 Mr. Peter Szymonik worked for TyMetrix, Inc. from July 2002 to March 10, 2005 as the Director of Client Services and then as Vice President of Technical Operations beginning in January 2004.  TyMetrix was a technology company that provided web-based systems for its clients in order&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/retention-of-confidential-information-is-a-clear-breach-of-non-compete-according-to-connecticut-court/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/retention-of-confidential-information-is-a-clear-breach-of-non-compete-according-to-connecticut-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Enters Fifteen Year Unallocated Alimony and Support Award in Recent Dissolution of Marriage Action</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-enters-fifteen-year-unallocated-alimony-and-support-award-in-recent-dissolution-of-marriage-action/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-enters-fifteen-year-unallocated-alimony-and-support-award-in-recent-dissolution-of-marriage-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 17:29:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony and support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridgeport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cohabitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duration of alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earning capacity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[married]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minor children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-modifiable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unallocated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unallocated alimony and support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unearned income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a relatively recent dissolution of marriage action pending in the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, the Court awarded the wife unallocated alimony and support in the amount of $6,000 per month for a period of ten years, followed by $3,000 per month for a period of five years.  Married in 1993, the parties were the parents of four minor children.  The husband was employed in the insurance industry throughout the marriage, and during the two years leading up to the parties’ dissolution, owned his own insurance company.  The court found that the husband’s earning capacity increased steadily throughout the marriage to approximately $200,000 at the time of trial.  This included earned income, commissions and other unearned income.

The wife’s work history was brief, and occurred mostly before the parties’ had children.  Though she was primarily responsible for raising the children, at the time of trial, she had returned to school and was in the process of obtaining an associate’s degree.  The parties’ primary asset was the marital home, which, according to the Court, had a value of approximately $600,000.

Based on its findings, the Court ordered the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $6,000 as unallocated alimony and child support for a period of ten years, followed by $3,000 per month for a period of five years.  The Court limited the duration of alimony, which was otherwise non-modifiable, upon the wife’s remarriage, the death of either party, or the wife’s cohabitation.  The Court also ordered that if the marital home was sold, the husband’s alimony obligation would increase to $7,500 per month for the first ten years and $3,750 for the following five years.

Should you have any questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached by telephone in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at <a href="mailto:mdemeola@mayalaw.com">mdemeola@mayalaw.com</a>.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/court-enters-fifteen-year-unallocated-alimony-and-support-award-in-recent-dissolution-of-marriage-action/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a relatively recent dissolution of marriage action pending in the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, the Court awarded the wife unallocated alimony and support in the amount of $6,000 per month for a period of ten years, followed by $3,000 per month for a period of five years.  Married in 1993, the parties&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/court-enters-fifteen-year-unallocated-alimony-and-support-award-in-recent-dissolution-of-marriage-action/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-enters-fifteen-year-unallocated-alimony-and-support-award-in-recent-dissolution-of-marriage-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Dissolution of Marriage Action, Court Orders Both an Allocated and Unallocated Alimony Award</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/in-dissolution-of-marriage-action-court-orders-both-an-allocated-and-unallocated-support-award/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/in-dissolution-of-marriage-action-court-orders-both-an-allocated-and-unallocated-support-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abusive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony and child support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allocated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allocated periodic alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breakdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breakdown of marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earning capacity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earnings history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital breakdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-modificable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safe harbor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unallocated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unallocated alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unallocated award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent dissolution of marriage action, the Court ordered a husband to pay to his wife unallocated alimony and child support for a period of two and one-half years, followed by allocated alimony and child support for a period of six years.  The parties originally met in 1998 and were married for 13 years.  They were the parents of two children, both of whom were minors at the time of trial.  The parties blamed each other for the breakdown of the marriage, with the wife accusing the husband of engaging in verbally and physically abusive behavior, and the husband accusing the wife of being unfaithful.  Despite the parties’ accusations, the Court ultimately found that neither was at greater fault for the marital breakdown.

At the time of trial, the wife was forty-one years of age.  She had suffered from asthma for approximately three years and also had heart spasms, though neither condition prevented her from working.  During the marriage, she earned between $30,000 and $40,000 per year until the birth of the parties’ second child.  According to the wife, at that point, the husband asked her to cut back so she could care for the children.  Based on her earnings history, the Court found the wife had an earning capacity of $40,000 per year.

The husband was fifty-two years of age and generally in good health.  At one point during the marriage he earned approximately $100,000 per year as a car salesman.  However, at the time of trial he was working as a general manager at a local dealership earning $211,120 gross annually, or $4,060 gross per week.

Based on its findings, the Court awarded the wife unallocated alimony and child support in the amount of $1,000 per week for a period of two and one-half years, followed by periodic alimony in the amount of $250 per week for a period of six years, and child support in the amount of $500 per week until the parties’ children graduate from high school, or attain the age of 19, whichever occurs first.  The Court designated both the unallocated award and the allocated periodic alimony as non-modifiable as to duration, and also allowed the wife a safe harbor, permitting her to earn up to $40,000 per year before the husband could seek a downward modification to his alimony obligation.

Should you have any questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached by telephone in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at <a href="mailto:mdemeola@mayalaw.com">mdemeola@mayalaw.com</a>.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/in-dissolution-of-marriage-action-court-orders-both-an-allocated-and-unallocated-support-award/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a recent dissolution of marriage action, the Court ordered a husband to pay to his wife unallocated alimony and child support for a period of two and one-half years, followed by allocated alimony and child support for a period of six years.  The parties originally met in 1998 and were married for 13 years. &hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/in-dissolution-of-marriage-action-court-orders-both-an-allocated-and-unallocated-support-award/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/in-dissolution-of-marriage-action-court-orders-both-an-allocated-and-unallocated-support-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Custody and Relocation: How to Request Permission to Move with Minor Children</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/custody-and-relocation-requesting-permission-to-move-with-minor-children/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/custody-and-relocation-requesting-permission-to-move-with-minor-children/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:24:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best interests of the child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridgeport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danbury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfield County]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fairfield county lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GAL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenwich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[H. Daniel Murphy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maya Murphy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minor child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[move]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Canaan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stamford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wilton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the years following divorce, many custodial parents are faced with the challenge – and the associated legal hurdles – of determining whether they are permitted to relocate out of state or across the country with any minor children of the marriage.  The non-custodial parent may object to the decision and the move, and if the parties cannot agree, ultimately a judge will be empowered to determine whether the relocation will be allowed.  The law governing this decision is set forth in our state statutes and governing case law.

Prior to a change in the law in 2006, the parent seeking a relocation with minor children was required to prove to a court by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation was for a legitimate purpose, and, further, that the proposed relocation was reasonable in light of that purpose.  Only if that burden was met by the moving party, the non-custodial parent (the parent opposed to the relocation) had the burden to demonstrate to the court that the move would <em>not</em> have been in the best interests of the minor child or children.  Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 717 A.2d 676 (1998).

This “burden-shifting” analysis adopted by the Supreme Court in the Ireland case in 1998 was replaced by our Legislature in 2006 with Public Acts 2006, No. 06-168, now set forth in General Statutes § 46b-56d.  Section 46b-56d(a) now reads: (a) In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocating parent would have a significant impact on an existing parenting plan, the relocating parent shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

The effect of General Statutes § 46b-56d(a) is essentially to codify the three-part provisions of the Ireland rule, while at the same time relieving the party opposing relocation of its former burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that despite the moving party's showing that relocation is for a legitimate purpose and is reasonable in light of that purpose, the relocation nevertheless fails to be in the best interests of the child.  Under today’s law, Section 46b-56d(a) now places squarely on the shoulders of the party advocating relocation the <em>entire</em> burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, not only that the relocation is for a legitimate purpose and is reasonable in light of that purpose, but also that the relocation is affirmatively in the best interests of the child.

General Statutes § 46b-56d(b) further enumerates five specific factors that our courts are now statutorily obligated to consider in determining whether to approve a parent's request to relocate with a child. Section 46b-56d(b) reads: (b) In determining whether to approve the relocation of the child under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, but such consideration shall not be limited to: (1) Each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation; (2) the quality of the relationships between the child and each parent; (3) the impact of the relocation on the quantity and the quality of the child's future contact with the nonrelocating parent; (4) the degree to which the relocating parent's and the child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the relocation; and (5) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements.

These factors were first adopted by the Ireland court from the New York Court of Appeals case of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 665 N.E.2d 145, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1996), under the court's supervisory authority. Under Ireland, each of the Tropea  factors is to be considered, although not exclusively, and no single factor is to be presumed to carry dispositive weight. Ireland v. Ireland, supra, 246 Conn. 434. "Moreover, any other factors or circumstances that could have a bearing on the court's determination of the child's best interests should be considered and given the appropriate weight in the court's analysis." Ireland v. Ireland, supra, 435. The ultimate goal in considering these and other factors deemed appropriate by the court is to facilitate an accurate case-by-case determination of whether the relocation proposed by the moving party indeed lies in the best interests of the child.  Ireland v. Ireland, supra, 433-34.

Whether you are considering or opposing a relocation of minor children after divorce, it is suggested that you consult with family law attorneys who are experienced in these matters.  For any further information or confidential inquires regarding this posting, please contact Attorney H. Daniel Murphy at 203-221-3100 or <a href="mailto:hdmurphy@mayalaw.com">hdmurphy@mayalaw.com</a>.

________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/custody-and-relocation-requesting-permission-to-move-with-minor-children/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the years following divorce, many custodial parents are faced with the challenge – and the associated legal hurdles – of determining whether they are permitted to relocate out of state or across the country with any minor children of the marriage.  The non-custodial parent may object to the decision and the move, and if&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/custody-and-relocation-requesting-permission-to-move-with-minor-children/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/custody-and-relocation-requesting-permission-to-move-with-minor-children/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Modifies Alimony Based on Cohabitation</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-modifies-alimony-based-on-ex-wifes-cohabitation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-modifies-alimony-based-on-ex-wifes-cohabitation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:20:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[age]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causes for the dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cohabitating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cohabitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut General Statutes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial circumstances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgement of dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[living expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payment of alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[periodic alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post judgment divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separation agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[station]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substantial change in circumstances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent post judgment divorce action, the Court found that the ex-wife was cohabitating with another person, and, therefore, modified the ex-husband’s alimony obligation.  Pursuant to the parties’ separation agreement, the husband was obligated to pay to the wife alimony in the amount of $1,300 per month for a period of eight years.  The parties agreed that the amount of said alimony could later be modified, however, the duration could not unless the plaintiff remarried.  Approximately six and one-half years following the parties’ divorce, the ex-husband filed a motion to modify, claiming that the parties’ financial circumstances had changed substantially and also that the ex-wife was cohabitating with another person as defined in Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-86(b).

In reaching its decision, the Court explained that pursuant to General Statutes §46b-86(b), alimony may be modified or terminated upon a showing that the party receiving the periodic alimony is living with another person causing a change of financial circumstances.  Where a Court finds that a party is living with another individual, it may modify, reduce, suspend or terminate the payment of alimony if there is a corresponding change in financial circumstances. In other words, in cases involving the cohabitation statute, the threshold predicate for the modification of alimony is lowered to situations where the court finds cohabitation and a change in circumstances so as to alter the needs of the party.  Thus, the higher burden required by §46b-86(a), requiring a “substantial change” in circumstances is lowered when there is cohabitation.  Once the Court finds both cohabitation and a change in the financial needs of the party receiving alimony, it must then apply the factors enumerated in Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-82 to determine the appropriate amount of support, if any.  Those criteria include the needs and financial resources of each party as well as the causes for the dissolution, the age, health, station, occupation, employability and amount and source of income of the parties.

After hearing evidence, the Court found that the ex-wife was indeed living with another man, and, further, that her income and expenses changed due to significant support she was receiving from him in excess of the alimony she was receiving from her ex-husband.  In fact, the ex-wife’s income was approximately 10% higher, not taking into consideration regular gifts and payment of living expenses provided by her new partner.  Notably, the Court also pointed out that the ex-wife voluntarily moved to Florida to live with her new interest, leaving viable employment in the State of Connecticut and delaying access to her social security benefits.  With respect to the ex-husband’s financial circumstances, the Court found that his income was lower than at the time of dissolution, his assets had been depleted and his weekly payments substantially exceeded his income. Based on those findings, the Court modified the wife’s alimony to $1.00 per year until the husband’s obligation terminated under the terms of the original judgment of dissolution or was otherwise subsequently modified by order of the court.

Should you have any questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached by telephone in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at <a href="mailto:mdemeola@mayalaw.com">mdemeola@mayalaw.com</a>.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/court-modifies-alimony-based-on-ex-wifes-cohabitation/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a recent post judgment divorce action, the Court found that the ex-wife was cohabitating with another person, and, therefore, modified the ex-husband’s alimony obligation.  Pursuant to the parties’ separation agreement, the husband was obligated to pay to the wife alimony in the amount of $1,300 per month for a period of eight years.  The&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/court-modifies-alimony-based-on-ex-wifes-cohabitation/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-modifies-alimony-based-on-ex-wifes-cohabitation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Post-Judgment Matrimonial Action, Court Denies Motion to Modify Life Insurance Policy</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/in-post-judgment-matrimonial-action-court-denies-motion-to-modify-life-insurance-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/in-post-judgment-matrimonial-action-court-denies-motion-to-modify-life-insurance-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolved]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ex-husband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ex-wife]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irrevocable beneficiary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modifiable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion to modify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[net income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-modifiable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stamford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substantial change in circumstances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent post-judgment dissolution of marriage action pending in the Judicial District of Stamford, the Court denied an ex-husband’s motion to modify his life insurance policy, even though it modified, and drastically reduced, his alimony obligation.  By way of background, the parties’ marriage was dissolved on November 5, 1999 after they entered into a separation agreement.  Pursuant to that agreement, the Husband was obligated to maintain a life insurance policy with a face amount of $250,000 naming his ex-wife as an irrevocable beneficiary thereof.  At that point, the ex-husband’s net monthly income was $9,829.51.

At the time of the post-judgment hearing, the ex-husband was sixty-six years of age, retired and in declining health.  His net monthly income was $1,357.17.  The Court found that the reduction in his income and decline in his financial condition since the date of dissolution constituted a substantial change in circumstances, and reduced his alimony obligation from $6,270.00 per month to $2,500.00 per month.  The ex-husband requested that the Court reduce his life insurance obligation accordingly.

In its decision, the Court noted that although a life insurance policy is ordinarily considered property subject to distribution, and thus is ordinarily non-modifiable, where it is awarded as security for alimony, it <em>is</em> modifiable upon a substantial change in circumstances. Nevertheless, the Court denied the ex-husband’s motion, finding that even the policy of $250,000.00 did not provide adequate security given the ex-wife’s life expectancy as compared to the new alimony Order of $2,500.00 per month.  The Court also found that the ex-husband may no longer be insurable, and, therefore, if the alimony was increased or the modification reversed upon Appellate review, the ex-husband would be in a potentially impossible position of having to acquire a new life insurance policy.

Should you have any questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached by telephone in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at <a href="mailto:mdemeola@mayalaw.com">mdemeola@mayalaw.com</a>.

________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/in-post-judgment-matrimonial-action-court-denies-motion-to-modify-life-insurance-policy/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a recent post-judgment dissolution of marriage action pending in the Judicial District of Stamford, the Court denied an ex-husband’s motion to modify his life insurance policy, even though it modified, and drastically reduced, his alimony obligation.  By way of background, the parties’ marriage was dissolved on November 5, 1999 after they entered into a&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/in-post-judgment-matrimonial-action-court-denies-motion-to-modify-life-insurance-policy/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/in-post-judgment-matrimonial-action-court-denies-motion-to-modify-life-insurance-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Establishes New Standard in Predictive Neglect Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/supreme-court-predictive-neglect/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/supreme-court-predictive-neglect/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:04:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DCF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Children and Families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neglect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neglected]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predictive neglect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proper care and attention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1993</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision involving the Department of Children and Families, the Connecticut Supreme Court established a new standard governing the doctrine of predictive neglect, overturning precedent which the Appellate Court previously established in In re Kamari C-L.  In the matter of In re Joseph W., the Department of Children and Families pursued neglect petitions against the parents of two minor children.  After trial, the court found that both children were in fact “neglected” under the doctrine of predictive neglect.  From a factual standpoint, the trial court based its decision primarily on the mother’s long term mental health issues and failure to comply with treatment plans, as well as the father’s noncompliance with DCF requirements and inability to recognize the mother’s problems.  The trial court essentially concluded that under the doctrine of predictive neglect both children were “at risk” for harm.  On appeal, the father claimed that DCF should have been required to satisfy a more burdensome standard.

In reviewing the doctrine of predictive neglect, the Supreme Court explained that DCF need not wait until a child is actually harmed before intervening to protect that child.  As the Supreme Court stated, “Our statutes clearly and explicitly recognize the state's authority to act before harm occurs to protect children whose health and welfare <em>may</em> be adversely affected and not just children whose welfare has been affected.”  The Court explained, “The doctrine of predictive neglect is grounded in the state's responsibility to avoid harm to the well-being of a child, not to repair it after a tragedy has occurred… Thus, [a] finding of neglect is not necessarily predicated on actual harm, but can exist when there is a potential risk of neglect...”

Under the standard set forth in In re Kamari C-L, DCF could establish its case merely by proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a "potential risk" of neglect. However, as the Supreme Court noted, under this standard, DCF could theoretically prevail even if there was only a 10% chance of future harm to a child.  According to the Supreme Court, the “potential risk” standard gives insufficient weight to the “combined family integrity interests of parent and child.”

In formulating a more burdensome standard, the Court held that in predictive neglect cases, the trial court must find with respect to each parent that, if the child were to remain in that parent's independent care, the child would be denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, or would be permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to the well-being of the child or youth.  Where parents will be caring for the child together, the trial court may treat the parents as a single unit in determining whether DCF has met its burden of proving predictive neglect.

Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, or DCF matters generally, please feel free to contact Attorney Michael D. DeMeola, Esq. directly.  He can be reached in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100, or by e-mail at <a href="mailto:mdemeola@mayalaw.com">mdemeola@mayalaw.com</a>.

________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/supreme-court-predictive-neglect/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a recent decision involving the Department of Children and Families, the Connecticut Supreme Court established a new standard governing the doctrine of predictive neglect, overturning precedent which the Appellate Court previously established in In re Kamari C-L.  In the matter of In re Joseph W., the Department of Children and Families pursued neglect petitions&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/supreme-court-predictive-neglect/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/supreme-court-predictive-neglect/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Conditions Alimony Payments on the Sale of the Parties&#8217; Marital Residence</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-conditions-alimony-payments-on-the-sale-of-the-parties-marital-residence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-conditions-alimony-payments-on-the-sale-of-the-parties-marital-residence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:30:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carrying costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earning capacity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive use and possession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lifetime periodic alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital residence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[periodic alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stamford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following trial in a recent dissolution of marriage action pending in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford, the Court awarded the wife alimony, but conditioned payments on the sale of the marital residence.  The parties were married in 1973 and were the parents of two children, both of whom were over the age of twenty-three at the time of trial.  The husband was most recently employed by a family run business he formed in the early 1990’s, until he quit on January 1, 2012.  The business provided a relatively lucrative income for the husband as well as other family members.  In fact, the Court found that the family earned over $300,000 from the business annually.  The husband was also receiving income from Social Security, real estate brokerage commissions, two boat slip rentals and a golf school he owned in Florida.  The Court ultimately found that the husband had a then present earning capacity of $95,000.

During the marriage, the wife was employed by a local school system, and earned $28,000 at the high end.  However, she ultimately left that job at the husband’s request.  With respect to assets, the family owned a home in Stamford as well as a vacation property in Key Largo, Florida and a rental property in Stamford, Connecticut.  They also owned an interest in a recreational club in Florida valued at approximately $200,000, and maintained modest retirement accounts.

As to the breakdown of the marriage, the Court did not expressly assign fault to either party.  Nonetheless, it did note that more recently the husband treated the wife in a self-centered, callous manner, and in fact sought other relationships during the pendency of the case.  The Court further noted that the husband’s absolute control over the finances created a virtual “Rubik’s Cube” making it difficult for the court to ascertain an accurate picture of the parties’ financial circumstances.  The Court found that his arbitrary use and manipulation of the family income and assets created a great deal of confusion and could very well lead to economic disaster for both parties.

Based on its findings, the Court concluded that permanent lifetime periodic alimony would be appropriate.  However, it also awarded the wife exclusive use and possession of the martial residence until its sale, with the husband responsible for the carrying costs associated therewith.  Therefore, although the Court ultimately awarded the wife lifetime periodic alimony in the amount of $2,750 per month, it conditioned the husband’s payment thereof upon the sale of the marital residence.

Should you have any questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached by telephone in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at <a href="mailto:mdemeola@mayalaw.com">mdemeola@mayalaw.com</a>.

________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/court-conditions-alimony-payments-on-the-sale-of-the-parties-marital-residence/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Following trial in a recent dissolution of marriage action pending in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford, the Court awarded the wife alimony, but conditioned payments on the sale of the marital residence.  The parties were married in 1973 and were the parents of two children, both of whom were over the&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/court-conditions-alimony-payments-on-the-sale-of-the-parties-marital-residence/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/court-conditions-alimony-payments-on-the-sale-of-the-parties-marital-residence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trial Court Transforms Time Limited Alimony Award into Lifetime Alimony</title>
		<link>http://www.mayalaw.com/trial-court-permitted-to-transform-time-limited-alimony-award-into-lifetime-alimony/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mayalaw.com/trial-court-permitted-to-transform-time-limited-alimony-award-into-lifetime-alimony/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>H.D.Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matrimonial law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony and support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambiguous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys in Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best divorce attorney in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clear and unambiguous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cohabitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Divorce Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Divorce Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct divorce laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT divorce mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ct lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody modifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution of marriage in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Fairfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney for women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorney Hartford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce attorneys NYC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law firm NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyer nyc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family in NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing divorce in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free consultation family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free divorce consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment of dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law firm ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal advice in ct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal separation CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lifetime alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matrimonial law CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modifiability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modifiable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion to modify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion to modify alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new haven divorce attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nonmodifiable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[periodic alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post judgment divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post marital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premarital agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenup NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prenuptial agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property division in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remarriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraining orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separation agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncontested divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visitation rights in CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mayalaw.com/?p=1306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent decision rendered in a post judgment divorce action highlights the importance of using clear and unambiguous language when drafting alimony and support provisions meant to preclude modifiability.  In that particular case, the husband was obligated to pay to the wife periodic alimony in the amount of $1,500 per week until the death of either party, the wife’s remarriage or cohabitation, or her sixtieth birthday, whichever first occurred.  Significantly, the wife was also awarded a one-half interest in the marital portion of the husband’s profit-sharing plan which had a value of approximately $1,000,000, although the parties later agreed to reduce her share by just over $500,000.

One month before her sixtieth birthday, the wife filed a motion to modify alimony, claiming that substantial changes in the market resulted in a significant reduction in the value of the husband’s profit-sharing plan such that she would be unable to support herself as originally anticipated.  The trial court granted the wife’s motion and, although it modified the amount of alimony down to $1,095 per week, it eliminated all limitations on the term of the award.

The husband appealed arguing that the trial court’s order impermissibly transformed a limited duration alimony award into lifetime alimony.  In upholding the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Court explained that provisions precluding modification are generally disfavored, and to that end, an order shall be considered nonmodifiable only if the decree distinctly and unambiguously expresses so.  Indeed, if an order purportedly precluding modification is ambiguous, it will be deemed modifiable.  Although the order in this particular case indicated that alimony would terminate upon the wife’s sixtieth birthday, there was no provision in the judgment specifically stating that alimony was nonmodifiable.  For that very reason, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s ruling, declaring the provision ambiguous, and, thus, modifiable.  Again, this case emphasizes the importance of using clear and unambiguous language when crafting a separation agreement which will ultimately be incorporated into the Court’s judgment of dissolution.  If ambiguous or imprecise language is used, the provision at issue may become subject to judicial interpretation.

Should you have any questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached by telephone in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at <a href="mailto:mdemeola@mayalaw.com">mdemeola@mayalaw.com</a>.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
 <a href="http://www.mayalaw.com/trial-court-permitted-to-transform-time-limited-alimony-award-into-lifetime-alimony/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[A recent decision rendered in a post judgment divorce action highlights the importance of using clear and unambiguous language when drafting alimony and support provisions meant to preclude modifiability.  In that particular case, the husband was obligated to pay to the wife periodic alimony in the amount of $1,500 per week until the death of&hellip; <a class="read-more" href="http://www.mayalaw.com/trial-court-permitted-to-transform-time-limited-alimony-award-into-lifetime-alimony/">Read more</a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mayalaw.com/trial-court-permitted-to-transform-time-limited-alimony-award-into-lifetime-alimony/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
