Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. Di Iulio

Appellate Court of Connecticut

August 27, 2019

Heather WILSON
v.
Michael DI IULIO

         Argued March 11, 2019

         Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court, Olear, J.

Page 4

          John F. Morris, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).

         Steven R. Dembo, Hartford, with whom were Caitlin E. Kozloski, Hartford and, on the brief, P. Jo Anne Burgh, Glastonbury, for the appellee (plaintiff).

         DiPentima, C. J., and Bright and Moll, Js.

          OPINION

         MOLL, J.

         [192 Conn.App. 102] The defendant, Michael Di Iulio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Heather Wilson, and entering related financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by (1) failing to award him more than nominal alimony despite the substantial disparity in the parties’ incomes and ability to afford expenses and (2) making a property award enforceable by a modifiable alimony award. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         [192 Conn.App. 103] The following facts, as set forth in the court’s memorandum of decision,[1] and procedural history are relevant to our discussion. The parties began dating in 1991, when they both were employed by the Office of the Attorney General. The plaintiff was, and continues to work as, an assistant attorney general; the defendant worked as an accountant until 2002 or 2003, when he retired. The parties were married on October 6, 1999. By complaint dated June 7, 2016, the plaintiff commenced the present action seeking dissolution of the parties’ marriage.

          The parties have two children, a daughter born in 2000, and a son born in 2004. The parties agreed to share joint legal custody of the children and, during trial, asked the court to incorporate their parenting plan into the court’s decision. The parties’ daughter resided with the plaintiff, and the parties’ son shared time with both parents by staying with each parent alternating weeks. The parties agreed that the children have attended and may continue

Page 5

to attend private schools and that the parties would pay these expenses from the assets that they had accumulated for the children. The parties also agreed, and the court ordered, that the children’s postsecondary education expenses would be paid from the funds in certain specified accounts and that the plaintiff would pay any costs remaining after the application of such funds.

         At the time of trial, the plaintiff was fifty-seven years old and generally was healthy. She has a bachelor’s degree, as well as a juris doctor and has worked at the Office of the Attorney General since 1986.[2] The [192 Conn.App. 104] plaintiff’s biweekly salary was $5968 and her net weekly income after mandatory deductions was $1991. The plaintiff is fully vested in the Connecticut state employee retirement system. The court found that until recently, the plaintiff had withheld funds from her biweekly paycheck for investment in her 457 retirement plan. The plaintiff also has premarital assets and assets inherited from her mother.

          At the time of trial, the defendant was seventy years old. He has a bachelor’s degree and retired from the Office of the Attorney General in 2002 or 2003. Prior to his employment with the Office of the Attorney General, the defendant worked for various entities doing accounting and cost analysis. The court found that the defendant was not advancing in his position with the Office of the Attorney General and was working for a difficult supervisor. The parties mutually decided that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.