Motions may be filed while a divorce case is pending and courts have the authority to enter temporary orders, which stay in effect until the divorce is finalized. Pendente lite is simply a Latin term meaning “while the litigation is pending.” Therefore, a pendente lite motion is often referred to as a temporary motion.
Common examples of pendente lite motions include:
Custody/Parenting Plan – establishes where the child will live, decision making and visitation;
Alimony – temporary spousal support;
Child Support – temporary support for a child which is payable to the custodial parent;
Counsel/Attorney fees – if assets are controlled by one spouse the other spouse may request that a specific amount be allocated for their legal expenses;
Motion for Exclusive Possession of Marital Residence – one spouse is permitted to temporarily live in the marital residence to the exclusion of the other spouse.
Pendente lite motions are not limited to the above; they may be tailored to address the specific issues in a particular case.
Pendente lite Motion Lawyer
It is not necessary to file a pendente lite motion in every case. The decision to file pendente lite motions should take into account the likelihood of success, the cost involved, alternatives to resolving the matter outside of court and the degree of imminency involved.
If pendente lite motions are filed, they are resolved either by stipulation (agreement) between the parties or by the judge after a trial like hearing. Since judges ordinarily do not wish to re-litigate issues, this distinction can be important when it comes time to enter the final divorce orders. Therefore, at the time of divorce, a judge is more likely to maintain the “status quo” when a pendente lite order was the result of previous and extensive court involvement.
Contact me online or call me in my Stamford office at (203) 356-1475 or in my Fairfield office at (203) 259-5251 to discuss your options on filing and defending a pendente lite motion.
How is alimony or child support determined if a spouse going through a divorce or modification of support is unemployed or underemployed? A judge may set support orders based on “earning capacity.”
Earning capacity has been defined the Connecticut Appellate Court as “an amount which a person can realistically be expected to earn considering such things as vocational skills, employability, age and health.” Therefore, a thorough analysis of the spouse’s education, work experience, earnings history, specific skills, and current economic conditions are required. Sometimes retaining an expert witness, such a vocational specialist, is worthwhile.
Two points:
1. A judge has the authority, but is not required, to establish or modify orders based on earning capacity. Judges are more likely impute an earning capacity of it appears that a spouse quit a job or is not making sincere efforts to obtain employment.
2. Earning capacity is not necessarily the highest amount of money a spouse once earned. When using earning capacity as means to calculate child support and alimony, judges will attempt to determine the amount a payor can currently earn. Clearly, past earnings are important in this determination but are not the sole factor.
In an effort to create a safer Christmas and New Year’s Eve, Connecticut state police have launched Operation S.A.N.T.A., or Operation Stop Another Needless Tragic Accident.
Operation S.A.N.T.A. is part of C.A.R.E., the combined accident reduction effort, which is a nationwide enforcement effort focused on drunk driving, speeding, distracted driving and other reckless actions that cause accidents.
Throughout Connecticut, and with particular attention on Interstate 95, police will increase DUI enforcement, including holding DUI sobriety checkpoints. These checkpoints are meant to catch drunk drivers before they can cause serious Connecticut car accidents.
Holiday accident statistics
The holidays are a dangerous time on the roads. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 468 people were killed on New Year’s Day in 2009, which is second only to Memorial Day in the number of holiday road fatalities. Forty of those fatalities were caused by drunk driving. On Christmas, there were 262 traffic fatalities, 37 of which were caused by drunk driving.
Police officers around the country are asking everyone to drink responsibly and arrange a ride home if necessary. If you suspect that someone is driving drunk, call the police immediately. No one wants to end up in jail this Christmas or New Year’s. Even more importantly, no one wants to spend the holidays in the hospital or lose someone they love to a drunk driver.
Nothing can take away the pain suffered by victims of Connecticut holiday accidents, especially when those accidents are caused by reckless and dangerous behaviors such as drunk driving and texting while driving. We encourage everyone to drive safely this holiday season. And if you are injured in a holiday car accident, turn to an experienced personal injury lawyer who can help you recover compensation for your medical bills, pain and suffering and more.
Source: Connecticut Department of Public Safety, “Operation Santa,” Press Release, Dec. 21, 2011.
The Connecticut Child Support Center will extend their hours on Thursdays from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. Extending the hours is an effort by the State to accommodate parents of working families many of whom find it difficult to call during regular business hours.
Read the Press advisory here: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press340.pdf
In late November, a U-Haul truck carrying beer kegs ran into the crowd at the Harvard-Yale tailgate party, killing one person and injuring two. The cause of the accident is still under investigation by the New Haven Police Department (NHPD).
The U-Haul driver, a Yale junior, passed a field sobriety test shortly after the accident and has not been charged, pending the investigation. He claims that the U-Haul accident was the result of a vehicle malfunction / auto defect. However, Connecticut U-Haul has called the claim premature. The Ford F-350 has been preserved for investigation.
If an auto defect caused the motor vehicle accident, the manufacturers of the vehicle and the defective auto part may be held liable. Other potential liable parties include the U-Haul rental company (if the rental was improper or the company rented the vehicle knowing it needed repair) and the driver.
Until the accident investigation is complete, everything is pure speculation. Other potential causes of the U-Haul accident include:
- The driver may have pushed both the gas pedal and brake pedal together by accident, which is possible on the particular model of U-Haul. There have been at least six complaints about pedal spacing and unpredictable acceleration in these U-Hauls.
- Drivers of U-Hauls are often inexperienced, which can lead to auto accidents.
- The U-Haul company may have improperly maintained the U-Haul.
Harvard and Yale are conducting review of the tailgate policies after this fatal accident. The Harvard-Yale tailgate is one of the largest social gatherings of the year for the colleges, and one of the largest drinking events.
How are inheritances handled in a Connecticut divorce?
Connecticut is an “equitable distribution” state. Actually, to be more precise, Connecticut is an “all property equitable distribution” state. This means that all property of both spouses, regardless of when the property was acquired or how the property was acquired, may be distributed by the divorce court.
Accordingly, inheritances are considered marital property subject to distribution as part of a divorce. However, there is a caveat. The court lacks authority to divide potential future inheritances that are too speculative in nature. The rationale – there are no assurances that an inheritance will ultimately be received. For example, a beneficiary could be “written out” of a subsequent will. In the case of a trust, the spouse may have an unvested interest and would only acquire a “vested” interest if certain contingencies were met.
Here is a quick illustration. In a recent Connecticut divorce case, the Husband expected to inherit a large portion of his late father’s estate. However, at the time of divorce, the exact amount had not yet been determined by the Probate Court. Since the Husband had a vested interest, (he was named in the will and the contingency of his father dying had been satisfied) the divorce court awarded the Wife $100,000 of the inheritance provided that the Husband received at least $250,000 from the Probate Court.
How the inheritance is characterized is the key.