Lawsuit Challenges Connecticut Alimony Laws

, The Connecticut Law Tribune


Four plaintiffs have filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut's alimony laws on the grounds that they affect a "fundamental liberty interest in ending a marriage and in remarrying."

The plaintiffs, who filed their complaint anonymously and who were ordered to pay alimony as a result of their respective divorces in Middlesex, Hartford, Fairfield and Middletown counties, argue there are no standards to guide judges when granting alimony. The lawsuit claims alimony is an anachronism dating from when women's legal identities merged into their husbands' identities upon marriage.

Within that framework, no statue guides judges on the point of granting spousal support, according to the complaint. "In no other area of law is the judiciary cast adrift and empowered to force the transfer of a private citizen's assets with no stated goal against which to measure the appropriateness of the award," the plaintiffs' papers said.

In contract cases, courts are only allowed to award enough money to return plaintiffs to the positions they would have been if their contracts had not been breached, the plaintiffs said. In personal injury cases, courts are only allowed to award plaintiffs enough to compensate them for their pain and suffering as well as their lost earning power, the plaintiffs also said.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Connecticut's alimony laws violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as a permanent injunction enjoining the alimony laws.

This is not the first time a challenge to how alimony is awarded has been raised in the state, although it appears to be the first time a constitutional argument has been made.

Edward Nusbaum, a Westport divorce lawyer who opposes efforts to change the alimony laws to add income-based guidelines and thus remove judicial discretion, said the constitutional argument is new to him. "It's not something I've seen in alimony reform," he said.

A contested proposal to use income-based formulas when determining alimony was raised by lawmakers last year, but did not advance in the legislature. A task force was created by the Judiciary Committee to study such a guidelines approach, along with aspects of "fairness and adequacy of state statutes relating to the award of alimony." The results of that study will be turned into the legislature in February.

Gov. Dannel Malloy was named as the sole defendant in the lawsuit filed Nov. 7.

Jaclyn Falkowski, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Attorney General, said in an email that the office will review the complaint and respond at the "appropriate time in court."

Having plaintiffs from across Connecticut was intended to show the widespread impact of alimony awards in this test case, said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Martin Karlinsky.

According to the plaintiffs, alimony is awarded in fewer than 20 percent of divorces in Connecticut and only "when the employment earnings of the husband are believed to materially exceed those of his wife."

Not only are the plaintiffs seeking to change Connecticut family law, they also appear to be trying to break new constitutional ground by having the right to end a marriage recognized as a fundamental liberty interest. The right to marry has been recognized as a fundamental liberty interest in the past.

Just as same-sex marriage litigation around the country heats up, this case "is just another frontier in the battle for equal rights and fairness," said Karlinsky, whose Manhattan-based Karlinsky LLC focuses on constitutional law and complex business, civil, commercial and personal litigation but not on family law.

The plaintiffs are seeking to challenge the Connecticut scheme for awarding alimony under a higher constitutional standard. They claim that "no state law may interfere with or burden these rights unless the law is necessary to promote a compelling state interest and is the most narrowly drawn means of achieving that interest."

Connecticut's "standardless" regime for alimony "seems to result in mistreatment and a lack of standards and lack of ability to predict what the law will require, no matter who applies it," Karlinsky said.

There is no meaningful appellate review of alimony awards, the plaintiffs pointed out, because the standard of review on appeal is whether trial courts "could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented."

Trial courts are not required to explain what weight they assigned to any factor in awarding alimony, the plaintiffs also argued.

Alimony first started in England during an era in which ecclesiastical courts would only permit limited divorces where spouses could live apart but husbands remained legally responsible for supporting their wives, according to the plaintiffs' papers. "The word 'alimony' derives from the Latin 'alimonia,' which means 'sustenance,'" the complaint said.

The plaintiffs also are challenging awarding attorney fees in alimony cases because, they said, in no other type of civil case do litigants have to pay for the other side's legal fees ahead of time.

"In practice, only wives are ever awarded attorneys' fees," according to the complaint. "They are awarded to wives even in pretrial proceedings before the court has heard evidence, and also awarded in post-judgment proceedings, when the spouses no longer have any legal or equitable interest in each other's property."

According to the Internal Revenue Service, former spouses pay approximately $9 billion in alimony each year, the plaintiffs' papers said.

The plaintiffs will seek permission from the court to proceed anonymously, Karlinsky said.

-- Managing Editor Jay Stapleton contributed to this report.

What's being said

  • kpr

    This is another example of the financially corrupt US legal system. Only lawyers participate in the gain. Look at other countries for best practices and standards.

  • MVP

    Having children and staying home to raise them is a choice, not a right. A spouse who opts to stay home should be fully aware of the choice and the attendant consequences. My ex wouldn't go back to work after our kids were school age - and still isn't working even though our kids are 23, 22, 20. At most she should have been out of the workforce for a few years and then rejoined. She refused. And now I'm stuck paying 11 years of alimony because of her choice. The system needs overhaul. I'm tired of hearing about spouses who feel entitled because they chose to stay home. You can't have it all in life. Choose kids? Choose to stay home. Understand the consequences.

  • David Conway

    I found that the lawsuit was a well written presentation.

    Not sure that suing the Governor was the best approach to this, but I welcome the legitimate debate over the purpose of alimony and the State's role in managing it.

    Bill 6688 signed by Governor Molloy and effective October 1, 2013 requires hearings to be held on this topic.

  • Susan

    Ordered to pay former husband's attorney fees.

  • Susan

    Mind the typos, you can't fix them on a phone: the comment gets erased.

  • Susan

    Mind the typos, you can't fix them on a phone: the comment gets erased.

  • Susan Skipp

    I was a wife ordered to pay attorney fees. My former husband, 85 percent if the household income, did not pay any of my fees.
    Also, marriage is a legal contract. Those whining men aren't thinking about the ability their former wives gave them to facilitate their earning potentials while they provided emotional support, cared for the home and children, hosted events, gone to events to convey their husbands' appearance of model citizenship and that he conforms to cultural and societal expectations. Perhaps during that time, these wives put off their own professional and educational goals to facilitate the husbands' careers? Is this devalued as soon as the spousal relationship is over. I know a man who is a stay at home dad and does the above mentioned roles. No way could his wife have ever attained her status without his emotional, financial and later raising if the children and maintaining a home. As my crooked family law attorney no less crooked than all in it said to me when all the assets I had before marriage disappeared during it to support my former husbands educational and professional roles as well as kept him out if jail for back alimony and child support from the marriage prior to mine, "You can't redo your financial decisions you made in marriage." Whiners: this is what a pre-nup is for!

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202627142771

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.