Croxall v. Croxall
"[D]issipation in the marital dissolution context  requires at a minimum  financial misconduct involving marital assets, such as intentional waste or a selfish financial impropriety, coupled with a purpose unrelated to the marriage," pursuant to Gershman v. Gershman, a 2008 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. The parties married and have three children, all of whom are adults. The husband, 63, is a self-employed computer consultant who previously earned about $95,000 gross per year. The husband claimed that his income decreased significantly in the past decade. The court found that the husband currently has an earning capacity of $75,000 gross per year. The wife, 62, works 32 hours per week as an office assistant at the Rocky Hill Veterans Hospital and earns $37,107 gross per year. In or about 2005, a buyer offered to pay $6.1 million to purchase property in Florida in which the husband owned a 50 percent interest. The buyer broke the contract, prior to closing. The husband received $91,000 for the husband's share of the settlement for the aborted sale. Eventually, the husband took out a loan on his share of the Florida property. The court found the husband's testimony about his use of money withdrawn from retirement accounts and loans "confused and inconsistent." The court found that although the parties regularly spent significantly more than they earned, there was no evidence of waste or selfish financial impropriety, with a purpose unrelated to the marriage. The parties overspent in part because they anticipated a cash windfall from the sale of the Florida property. The court dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to pay alimony of $150 per week, until the wife's death or marriage or the husband's 66th birthday. The court awarded the wife property in Newington that lacks equity. The court awarded the husband property in Maine and a timeshare. The court ordered the parties to divide equally the proceeds of sale in the amount of $248,657 from the property in Florida. The court awarded each party bank accounts and investments. The court awarded the wife the Subaru and the husband the Toyota.