March 11, 2019
Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the
court, Olear, J.
F. Morris, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
R. Dembo, Hartford, with whom were Caitlin E. Kozloski,
Hartford and, on the brief, P. Jo Anne Burgh, Glastonbury,
for the appellee (plaintiff).
C. J., and Bright and Moll, Js.
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
Conn.App. 103] The following facts, as set forth in the
courts memorandum of decision, 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.
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 courts 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
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 childrens 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.
time of trial, the plaintiff was fifty-seven years old and
generally was healthy. She has a bachelors degree, as well
as a juris doctor and has worked at the Office of the
Attorney General since 1986. The [192 Conn.App. 104]
plaintiffs 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.
time of trial, the defendant was seventy years old. He has a
bachelors 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 ...