HARRIGAN, J.T.R.
The parties' marriage was dissolved on September 16, 2005 after a trial. The memorandum of decision stated:
14. The court hereby reserves jurisdiction to enter an educational support order pursuant to General Statutes § 46-56c(b)(1), upon subsequent motion or petition filed by either party.
The parties are parents of Benjamin, Virginia and Andrew, all born on December 27, 1990 and each accepted to attend a college or university located in another state.
The court finds as a matter of fact that it is more likely than not that the parties would have provided support to these three children for higher education if the family were intact. Having made such finding, the court, in determining whether to enter an educational support order, shall consider all relevant circumstances, including the parents' income. The plaintiff has several physical conditions that, considered together, do not permit her to engage in income producing work. Currently she receives $7,000 monthly periodic alimony. The defendant is in good health and works for Cantor Fitzgerald as a Senior VP paid on commission. His current financial affidavit lists monthly net income from all sources of $18,736.
The parents' assets. The plaintiff's financial affidavit lists total assets of $676,887.05 and liabilities of $4,530.41. The defendant lists total assets of $981,393 and liabilities of $36,922.
Other obligations. The plaintiff is still maintaining the former marital home at a budget of $10,000 monthly and other expenses of $5,000 monthly. She had purchased the defendant's interest in the marital home for $700,000. Their youngest child, Emily, born February 21, 1992, lives CT Page 12825 at home with her mother. There is pending defendant's motion to modify alimony and child support.
The child's need for support. Each child has minimal assets and there was no indication that any ability to earn income existed for any such child.
Availability of financial aid. Each child anticipates some modest assistance but not major in amount.
Reasonableness of the higher education to be funded. Neither party complained about the courses or academic interests of their children. Since both parties are Harvard graduates the court infers that lack of complaint is tacit approval.
The child's preparation, aptitude and commitment to higher education. The same finding applies in each case.
Evidence de school. No evidence introduced.
The parties agreed that the amount charged by the University of Connecticut for a full-time in-state student for 2009-2010 is $20,006 plus books and supplies estimated at $800 (Pl. Ex. 1). For three children the total cap is $62,418.
The plaintiff claims to be unable to contribute in light of her circumstances. There is indication that she intends to put her home on the market when Emily completes high school. However, her ability to contribute is not limited to income. The statute requires each party's assets to be considered along with income.
The court finds that a reasonable contribution by the plaintiff is 50% of the "cap" or $31,209 with the defendant advancing the said share with reimbursement to be made to him when the plaintiff's home is sold and closed or, if no sale occurs, on or before November 30, 2010. The defendant shall be responsible for the remaining 50%. The court has no jurisdiction of college costs beyond the U Conn limit discussed supra and makes no order regarding any remaining tuition obligations.
CT Page 12826