BARLOW v. BARLOW, No. FA 06-4018492S (Aug. 5, 2008)

TRACEY BARLOW v. PAUL J. BARLOW.

2008 Ct. Sup. 13132
No. FA 06-4018492SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
August 5, 2008

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

CLARIFICATION
STEPHEN F. FRAZZJNI, JUDGE.

On August 31, 2007, this court issued its corrected memorandum of decision with regard to the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Neither party filed an appeal. The court found that the plaintiff then earned $200 per week gross and net working eight to 11 hours a week cleaning houses. The court further found that the plaintiff “has earning capacity to have more than from just four customers each week. Since there is no evidence that she yet has any more customers, the court will enter child support[1] and alimony[2] orders that give her a period of time to earn up to her earning capacity.” On June 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to open seeking an articulation by the court, a motion this court recently denied, as there is no authority under Connecticut law for an articulation in a case not on appeal, without prejudice to her right to seek a clarification of the court’s decision. The plaintiff has now moved that the court clarify “what amount the court believes the Plaintiff’s earnings will increase in the one year following this Decision.”

As Judge Tiemey recently wrote:

“Motions for interpretation or clarification, although not specifically described in the rules of practice, are commonly considered by trial courts and are procedurally proper.” Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn.App. 363, 366 (1990). “There is no time restriction imposed on the filing of a motion for clarification. Barnard v. Barnard, 214 Conn. 99, 100
(1990) (motion for clarification filed sixteen months after judgment); Cattaneo v. Cattaneo, 19 Conn.App. 161, 162-63 (1989) (motion for clarification filed six and one-half years after judgment).” Holcombe v. Holcombe, supra, 22 Conn.App. 366.

DeNunzio v. DeNunzio, Superior Court, judicial district of CT Page 13133 Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, docket no. FST FA 02-0189968S (April 16, 2008). In the present case, the court exercises its discretion to grant the plaintiff’s motion, to the extent that the court clarifies that it did not find that plaintiff’s earnings would necessarily increase by a specific amount or to a specific amount in the year following the judgment. The court found instead that she had an earning capacity greater than her then-present income.

[1] The court found that the presumptive child support amount under the child support guidelines, based on the parties’ respective net incomes, was for defendant to pay child support of $139 per week. The court further found that it “would be inequitable, however, not to consider her earning capacity in determining the support award.” The court thus awarded plaintiff child support for a year in the presumptive amount “to give her time to increase her customer base and earn more, after which, taking her earning capacity into consideration, the child support order will be for defendant to pay weekly child support in the amount of $48.”

[2] The court ordered “alimony in the amount of $150 per week for one year, to give the wife time to enhance her customer base, and thereafter $100 per week for the remainder of ten years.”

CT Page 13134