Opinion ID: 2283337
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: finances

Text: Prior to the dissolution decree the defendant had established a custodial savings account for Brian's benefit and had been depositing money to the account at the rate of approximately $1000 per year. The defendant's post-trial financial proposal [5] included a payment of $1000 yearly into an educational fund for Brian with the defendant as custodian. The trial court ordered the defendant to deposit as he had agreed to do $1000 per year into an educational fund. The plaintiff and the defendant are to be joint custodians and joint approval is required for withdrawals. The defendant attacks this order on three grounds: (1) he did not agree to the deposits; (2) it is invalid for lack of a limitation at Brian's eighteenth birthday; and (3) the joint approval provisions are unworkable. The defendant testified that the fund was established and the deposits made by his agreement in early pretrial settlement negotiations following the separation of the parties. The court did not err in concluding that the defendant agreed to make such payments. The legislature of this state has established eighteen years to be the age of majority. General Statutes § 1-1d. Consequently child support orders stemming from a dissolution action may not extend beyond the child's eighteenth birthday. [6] Miller v. Miller, 181 Conn. 610, 613-14, 436 A.2d 279 (1980); Broaca v. Broaca, 181 Conn. 463, 466, 435 A.2d 1016 (1980); Hunter v. Hunter, 177 Conn. 327, 330, 416 A.2d 1201 (1979); Sillman v. Sillman, 168 Conn. 144, 152, 358 A.2d 150 (1975). It is clear that the trial court was conscious of this limitation because, in its unchallenged order to designate Brian as the irrevocable beneficiary of certain life insurance policies, the court ordered the defendant to maintain the policies until Brian is eighteen years old. Neither the periodic child support order nor the educational fund order contain any language terminating payments at age eighteen or continuing payments beyond age eighteen. In order to find error in this order it would be necessary to read into the order language which is not there and which would contravene statutory and case law. This we will not do. With respect to the assertion that the joint approval provision is unworkable, the simple answer is that future cooperation of the parties can only be measured in the future. If the provision proves to be unworkable, the proper approach is to seek modification of the order at that time. General Statutes § 46b-56; Cleveland v. Cleveland, 165 Conn. 95, 100-101, 328 A.2d 691 (1973).
The defendant was ordered to designate the plaintiff as beneficiary on an insurance policy on his life. Such an order is well within the inherent equitable power of the court in a dissolution proceeding. Pasquariello v. Pasquariello, 168 Conn. 579, 585, 362 A.2d 835 (1975); Thomas v. Thomas, 159 Conn. 477, 482-83, 271 A.2d 62 (1970). See Broaca v. Broaca, supra, 473-74 (Peters, J., dissenting on another issue). Insurance premiums are paid during a decedent's lifetime and the proceeds flow directly to the beneficiary. This is not analogous to a claim of continued payment of periodic alimony from the estate of the deceased ex-spouse. See Harrison v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 147 Conn. 435, 437, 162 A.2d 182 (1960).
The defendant is a college professor. During the marriage he co-authored two textbooks and associated workbooks and teachers' manuals which are collectively called Bookmark. At the time of the trial one of the books had been released and the others were in the process of being released. The defendant testified that the life span for such textbooks is approximately five years and that he would receive a percentage of the sales income as royalties after deduction of the $1500 he had already received as a publisher's advance against royalties. The trial court awarded to the plaintiff 20 percent of the defendant's royalties on Bookmark for a period of five years. The defendant attacks this award as speculative. It is true that the exact dollar amount of the royalties to be received is not yet known; however, the right to receive the royalties is contractually established at the present time, unlike a potential inheritance which is speculative. See Krause v. Krause, 174 Conn. 361, 365, 387 A.2d 548 (1978). This is more akin to an order to sell the marital home and divide the proceeds. See Pasquariello v. Pasquariello, supra, 586-87. Although the exact sale price will not be determined until a sale is concluded, the legal right to the proceeds existed at the time of the order. The award is precisely defined as to subject matter, royalties on a specific completed set of books, and time, five years. It is, therefore, neither indefinite nor speculative.
The defendant's only claim of error with respect to the award of partial counsel fees is that the court improperly applied the statutory criteria. See General Statutes § 46b-62; deCossy v. deCossy, 172 Conn. 202, 206, 374 A.2d 182 (1977). This is the same claim which the defendant makes regarding the total financial package of alimony and property awarded to the plaintiff. Thus the issue of counsel fees is subsumed into the general claim which we now discuss.
The statutes governing alimony and the assignment of property in a dissolution proceeding require the court to consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the dissolution, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties. General Statutes §§ 46b-82, 46b-81 (c). In addition, with respect to a property division, the court must consider each party's liabilities, opportunity for future acquisition of capital and income, and contribution toward the acquisition, preservation or appreciation of their property. General Statutes § 46b-81 (c). In awarding alimony the court must also consider any property assignment and the desirability of the custodial parent's securing employment. General Statutes § 46b-82. The trial court stated that these provisions had been considered and that three factors predominate in this case: the parties' future health and earning capabilities, their individual contribution to jointly held property, and the cause of the breakdown of the marriage. All three factors are specifically mentioned in the statutes. The court received financial affidavits from both parties and testimony on these three factors as well as on the other statutory elements. No one factor is determinative of a financial award. Valante v. Valante, 180 Conn. 528, 530-31, 429 A.2d 964 (1980). It would be error to exclude testimony on any of the statutory factors. Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 572-73, 427 A.2d 406 (1980). Each statutory factor need not be discussed with equal depth in the memorandum of decision. Hardisty v. Hardisty, 183 Conn. 253, 261, 439 A.2d 307 (1981); Fucci v. Fucci, 179 Conn. 174, 425 A.2d 592 (1979). Applying these principles to the record before us, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court based its decision on an erroneous application of the statute. To the extent that the defendant's argument rests on the premise that the sum of money awarded indicates an improper use of statutory criteria, the issue becomes whether the trial court abused its discretion in making the alimony and property division orders. Miller v. Miller, 181 Conn. 610, 611, 436 A.2d 279 (1980); Corbin v. Corbin, 179 Conn. 622, 427 A.2d 432 (1980); Fucci v. Fucci, supra. As in the custody matters discussed above, the trial court has a distinct advantage over an appellate court because of its proximity to the parties and the evidence which serves as a basis for alimony and property assignment decisions. Leveston v. Leveston, 182 Conn. 19, 23, 437 A.2d 819 (1980). The conclusions of the trial court will be disturbed only where the court could not reasonably conclude as it did. Leveston v. Leveston, supra; Miller v. Miller, supra; Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263, 413 A.2d 854 (1979). Both parties worked during the marriage and contributed to the assets which, at the time of the separation, were almost entirely held jointly. The financial affidavits of the parties indicate that at the time of the hearing the total income of each of the parties was approximately equal, as were their expenses. The plaintiff's figures included pendente lite alimony and child support and her then-current royalties. The plaintiff testified, and the court found, that her royalties were declining and that she desired to take a lower-paying job to be more available to Brian. The defendant's figures included no current royalties and listed as expenses his life insurance premiums, the payments to Brian's educational fund and the pendente lite alimony and child support. The court found that the defendant's Bookmark series promises to yield substantial future royalties. At the hearing there was an intensive line-by-line examination of the financial affidavits and the recent income history of both parties. It is apparent that the trial court acted reasonably in concluding as it did; we find no abuse of discretion in the awards relating to finances. There is error only in the portion of the visitation restriction which applies the restriction to any woman not married to the defendant; the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment as on file except as modified in accordance with this opinion.