Mecartney v. Mecartney
Citations
- 206 Conn. App. 243
Syllabus
The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the trial court's orders issued follow- ing a hearing on the defendant's motion for contempt. Pursuant to a separation agreement entered into by the parties and incorporated into the judgment of dissolution, the plaintiff was obligated to name the defendant as the beneficiary of a $900,000 life insurance policy; however, the plaintiff was not required to pay more than $3500 for the annual premium for the insurance. In 2008, the court issued an order increasing the life insurance coverage the plaintiff was required to maintain from $900,000 to $1.8 million. The order made no mention of the $3500 cost limitation. In 2019, the plaintiff communicated to the defendant that he would be discontinuing any further life insurance coverage because the costs had become excessive. Coverage under the original policy lapsed in March, 2019. The plaintiff then obtained a life insurance policy through L Co., effective May, 2019, but it contained an exclusion for any and all claims arising out of the insured person piloting any type of aircraft. The plaintiff owned a private aircraft and flew it ten to thirty times per month. In June, 2019, the court issued certain orders relating to the defendant's motion for contempt regarding the insurance coverage that the plaintiff had obtained: the plaintiff was required to apply to five separate insurance companies to obtain adequate insurance without a piloting exclusion, and, in the event that an application was rejected, or it was accepted with a piloting exclusion, the plaintiff was to transfer to the defendant as security for the life insurance obligation a mortgage in the face amount of $1.8 million on property owned by the plaintiff, and, until there was life insurance without a piloting exclusion or the mortgage deed had been recorded, the plaintiff was prohibited from piloting any aircraft or being a passenger in any airplane pil
Judges: Bright; Elgo; Abrams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.