ZORDAN v. ZORDAN, No. FA 03 90867 (Jan. 14, 2005)


Mark A. Zordan v. Laurie A. Zordan.

2005 Ct. Sup. 916
No. FA 03 90867Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield at Litchfield
January 14, 2005

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
BOZZUTO, JUDGE.

This is an action for dissolution of marriage and other relief brought to the Judicial District of Litchfield. Both the plaintiff and the defendant appeared through counsel. The plaintiff proceeded on his complaint dated July 1, 2003. The matter was heard by the court on October 5, 6, and 7, 2004.

The court heard and considered the testimony of the parties, as well as other witnesses and received into evidence several exhibits. The court makes the following findings and orders.

The plaintiff and defendant, whose maiden name was Laurie A. Roulin, were married on August 23, 1985 at Goshen, Connecticut. The plaintiff has resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to bringing this action. The parties have one minor child, issue of the marriage, namely, Craig Anthony Zordan, born July 20, 1991. No other children have been born to the parties since the date of the marriage and the defendant is not currently pregnant. Neither party has been a recipient of state or local aid or cash assistance.

The plaintiff is forty-three years old and is in generally good health. He did suffer a work-related injury which required surgery and now limits his work capacity. He has a high school degree. The plaintiff has been employed by the City of Torrington since August 24, 1981. He has held several different positions during the course of his employment with the city and is currently an engineering assistant. He works thirty-seven and one-half hours per week, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He does not get any overtime. He earns approximately $44,800 per year. His gross weekly income is $861.90 and his net weekly income is $650.28. By virtue of his employment, the plaintiff is provided with a pension. The plaintiff is fully vested in the CT Page 917 pension which has a current gross value of approximately $56,888. Counsel for both parties have stipulated that this pension cannot be divided by way of a qualified domestic relations order.

The defendant is forty-three years old and in good health. She earned an Associates Degree in travel and tourism in 1982 from Endicott College. The defendant has held various jobs throughout the course of the marriage. At the time of the birth of their son, the defendant was employed by Dr. Blondin. The defendant took about four to five weeks off from work for maternity leave and then returned to Dr. Blondin’s office. The defendant was employed by Dr. Blondin for approximately four to five years.

The defendant’s last full-time position was at Litchfield County Gastroenterologists where she was responsible for general office duties. On August 8, 2003, the defendant was asked to leave this employment. The defendant candidly testified that she was having a difficult time dealing with the stress of her marital problems and was bringing those problems to work. She suffered from extreme anxiety so much so that it required a brief hospitalization. The defendant was clearly devastated by the collapse of her marriage.

After the loss of her job, the defendant went on unemployment. She worked odd part-time jobs thereafter. On October 11, 2004, the defendant gained full-time employment at Associates of Cardiovascular Medicine, P.C. She earns approximately $13.00 per hour working a forty-hour work week. The defendant’s gross weekly income is $520.00 per week and her net weekly income is $348.00 per week

The parties’ gross income over the last four calendar years is as follows:

plaintiff defendant

2000 $32,578 $32,778 2001 $40,003 $24,788 2002 $41,939 $26,593 2003 $43,772 $24,258

The plaintiff, without the defendant’s consent, filed a separate state and federal tax return for 2003, claiming both Craig and the mortgage interest. The plaintiff received a $1,899 refund from the federal government and a $331 refund from the CT Page 918 state of Connecticut. On March 26, 2004, the plaintiff deposited the returns. The plaintiff testified that he used the refund money to pay his parents for rent for the months of January, February and March 2004.[1]

The defendant, having to file separately, with no deductions, owes or owed the federal government $1,448. The parties in prior years filed jointly and always received a refund with the exception of tax year 2000 when they owed the federal government $41.

The parties met in a bar in Torrington in October of 1982 when they were 20 years old and began dating thereafter. At the time, both parties were residing with their parents in Torrington. On February 15, 1984 the plaintiff, with family members, purchased property, now known as 62 Wilson Rd., Litchfield, Connecticut, the marital residence. In April of 1984 the parties were engaged to be married. The parties were married on August 23, 1985.

A major dispute between the parties is their claim to 62 Wilson Road, Litchfield, CT. It is the plaintiff’s claim that prior to the marriage he had a $140,000 investment in the property and wants credit for the same. The defendant claims that she, along with the plaintiff found the subject property and helped in the construction of the dwelling. The defendant wants an equal share of the property.

In support of his claim, the plaintiff testified that he, his father and brother had been in the market to purchase undeveloped real estate for years prior to the marriage. It was the plan or intention of the plaintiff and his family to buy a large tract of land upon which family members could build their homes.

Despite the plaintiff’s claim that he was searching years for this property, it was not until February 15, 1984, that the plaintiff, his father, Anthony Zordan, and his brother, Keith A. Zordan purchased the subject property, then known as lot 8 of Litchfield Woods, for $25,000. The property consisted of 28.443 acres of undeveloped land. (Defendant’s Exhibit #54.) For reasons unknown and probably irrelevant, on September 17, 1984, Keith A. Zordan conveyed to the plaintiff and Anthony Zordan “one-half of my undivided one-third interest each” in lot 8. (Defendant’s Exhibit #33.) It is unclear from the record, what, if anything, the plaintiff and Anthony Zordan paid for this conveyance. On March 26, 1985, the plaintiff and Anthony Zordan took out a CT Page 919 $25,000 construction mortgage with the Torrington Savings Bank. (Defendant’s Exhibit #58.) The money was used to construct a modest single-family dwelling which only months later would become the marital residence.

The plaintiff testified that after the purchase of the property he, his brother, and his father cleared the property to make way for a 1,200 foot driveway that would eventually provide access to the marital residence. Further, the plaintiff testified that he and his father built the original structure themselves with the assistance of family and friends. The plaintiff testified that he worked on the house nights and weekends. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued on August 20, 1985, three days before the parties married.

The plaintiff had been living in the house one month prior to the wedding. At the time of the wedding, the plaintiff testified that the structure upon the property consisted of a kitchen, dining room, fireplace, 1 bedroom, 1 full bath, a utility room and closets. The plaintiff testified that he couldn’t remember whether the defendant looked at this property with him before the purchase. Further, he testified that the defendant did not assist in the building of the subject property with the exception of maybe doing some sweeping and providing meals.

In late 1986, early 1987, lot 8 was subdivided into two lots, lot 8A and lot 8B. Lot 8A consists of 21.780 acres and lot 8B consists of 6.663 acres. Both lots shared use of a 1.499 acre access way. The plaintiff testified that the subdivision was approved in 1987 at the same time the plaintiff conveyed to the defendant an interest in the subject property.

Defendant’s Exhibit #57 is a quit claim deed which indicates that on May 1, 1987, Anthony Zordan conveyed to the plaintiff lot 8A.[2] The plaintiff testified that he did not pay his father anything for this conveyance.

Defendant’s Exhibit #55 is a quit claim deed which indicates that on May 1, 1987, the plaintiff quit claimed to himself and the defendant lot 8A. Defendant’s Exhibit #56 is a quit claim deed which indicates that on May 1, 1987, the plaintiff quit claimed to himself and the defendant the access way referenced above. Finally, Defendant’s Exhibit #59 indicates that on May 1, 1987, the plaintiff and the defendant took out a loan of $55,000 from Torrington Municipal Federal Credit Union. As part of this CT Page 920 transaction, the parties paid off the original $25,000 loan. The new mortgage for $55,000 was used to add on to the existing structure.[3]

The defendant testified that she and the plaintiff, as well as the plaintiff’s father, looked at the subject property prior to its purchase, as well as viewed other properties. The plaintiff and the defendant spoke to a builder, Francis Cardillo, about house plans. The plaintiff and defendant chose the building site for the house together. The defendant offered photos into evidence which depict her efforts at the construction of the original dwelling. Additionally, the defendant testified that the plumbing materials used in the construction of the dwelling were purchased at a discount by virtue of the defendant’s employment at Litco, a plumbing materials supplier.

Arthur Oles, a certified real estate appraiser, provided expert testimony as to the current fair market value of the subject property, as well as the value of the property on the date of the marriage. It was Mr. Oles’ testimony that the current fair market value of 62 Wilson Road, Litchfield is $375,000.

Mr. Oles further testified that the value of the property as of August 23, 1985, the date of the parties’ marriage, was $140,000. This figure would appear to be significantly inflated in that Mr. Oles attributed a market value of $75,000 for 21.7 acres of the subject land as of August 23, 1985, when in fact some 16 months prior the plaintiff purchased the entire 28+ acres for $25,000. Arguably, the cost for this property as of August 23, 1985 was $90,000, i.e. $65,000 for the value of the improvement and $25,000 for the cost of the land. Further, the record is clear that the plaintiff held title to the property jointly with his father and thus did not have an undivided interest in the property at that time.

Currently, the property is encumbered by two debts totaling approximately $86,000.[4] The court finds the current fair market value of the property is $375,000. The gross equity in the property is approximately $289,000.

The marital residence is by far the parties’ most significant asset. Both parties’ arguments relative to their claim in the equity in the marital residence have merit and deserve the court’s considerations. Neither argument is viewed by this court as a “winner take all” proposition, but one of the many factors CT Page 921 this court has considered, consistent with the statutory scheme, in making its overall orders.

Both parties blame the other for the cause of the breakdown of their marriage. The plaintiff claims the marriage broke down because of stress over money or lack thereof. The defendant claims the marriage broke down because of the plaintiff’s extra marital affairs. It would appear to the court that money and affairs contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. It would further appear that the money problems, if any, and the affairs were brought about primarily by the plaintiff’s own doing.

The record is clear that both parties worked throughout the course of the marriage and contributed their income to the household. In addition to the parties’ income, the parties also received significant cash gifts from the defendant’s parents. Also, the plaintiff received a cash settlement from a workers’ compensation claim in the approximate amount of $28,000 and in March of 2003 received $15,000 from the sale of a piece of property that the plaintiff had inherited from his grandfather. In addition to usual and customary household expenses, the parties’ only debts were the two mortgages, the balances of which varied from $25,000 to its current combined balance of $86,000.[5] Given this scenario, it would appear that the parties should have been able to meet expenses without any sort of financial strain. What appears to have added to the sense of financial strain, if any in fact existed, is the parties’ consumption of goods that may have been beyond their means. For example, the plaintiff’s hobby of raising beef. At first, a couple of cows were purchased for the primary purpose of consumption. As plaintiff’s interest grew, so did the herd and the cost associated therewith which would include veterinary expenses, fencing, gates, construction of a large barn, feed, expenses for breeding, distribution and showing. Additionally, the parties spent $8,000 on a Caribbean Cruise as well as additional funds for other family vacations. The plaintiff sold a calf to purchase a $1,400 dog. The parties spent $6,000 to tile a floor; purchased a new spa for $7,000; initially purchased, and shortly thereafter upgraded twice a Harley Davidson motorcycle. Even with these expenses, which arguably were above and beyond the parties’ means, objectively reviewing the parties’ current financial affidavits, their assets clearly exceed their liabilities. This court would note that aside from the two mortgages, a majority of the current liabilities accumulated by the parties are primarily payable to lawyers relative to this CT Page 922 litigation. The court is not convinced that the parties’ financial standing could have had such a devastating effect or impact upon the parties’ marriage to render it beyond repair. The parties’ finances appeared to have been manageable so long as more attention was paid to the extent of their discretionary spending.

What would appear to be more pressing with respect to the stability of this marriage would be the plaintiff’s extramarital affairs. The plaintiff does not dispute that a friendship with Jamie MacDonald in February of 2000 led to a romantic relationship. The affair lasted for less than six months but caused irreversible consequences and set this marriage on a course of destruction. In the spring of 2003, the plaintiff began an intimate and romantic relationship with Mary Robinson. This relationship continues as of the date of trial. It is hard to cull anything from the record that would point to the defendant’s participation in the cause of the breakdown of this marriage. The court finds that the plaintiff is responsible for the demise of this marriage.

The parties have one child, Craig, born July 20, 1991. The parties reached a stipulated agreement, approved and accepted by the court, dated October 5, 2004, relative to Craig’s care and custody. Said stipulation is fully incorporated into this judgment as if fully set forth herein. The parties agree that the court should retain jurisdiction regarding the issue of post-majority education payments, pursuant to P.A. 02-128, which the court will do.

The parties have jointly maintained an account for Craig’s benefit since 1991 at the Torrington Federal credit union. The parties have withdrawn from this account at various times over the years for items unrelated to Craig’s care or education. Both parties testified that the funds were always restored. On March 13, 2003, the plaintiff, unilaterally, had the defendant’s name removed from this account. Since the inception of this action, approximately $12,609.64 has been withdrawn from this account, none relating to Craig’s care or education, with the exception of one doctor’s bill. Most of the withdrawals have benefitted the plaintiff. The plaintiff has withdrawn $9,628.64 for lawyers and fees, while the defendant has withdrawn $1,140 for attorneys fees payable to Craig’s lawyer. The balance remaining in this fund as of July 22, 2004 is $7,362.38. CT Page 923

The parties also dispute ownership of a tractor and related accessories, purchased in January of 2002. It is the plaintiff’s position that the tractor is owned by his parents and he just helped pay for it. The defendant claims that the tractor was purchased by plaintiff’s parents for the plaintiff’s benefit. Plaintiff’s exhibit 35 indicates that a tractor was “sold to” Mark Zordan. This same exhibit indicates that the cost of the tractor, plus accessories was $28,500. This amount was reduced by $9,000 for a trade on an old tractor used by the plaintiff. The balance owed for the new tractor was $21,730. Plaintiff’s exhibit 15 indicates that the plaintiff’s parents paid $15,365 toward the purchase of the tractor. This exhibit further indicates that the plaintiff withdrew $6,354 from Craig’s custodial account and applied this sum toward the purchase of the tractor. The tractor is used by the plaintiff and kept on the property at or near the marital residence. The plaintiff lists the value of the tractor, or his interest therein, to be $4,455.50.

The parties own a 2002 Harley Davidson motorcycle which was purchased by the plaintiff in November of 2001. This was the third motorcycle in a very short period of time purchased by the parties. Each new motorcycle got bigger and bigger. Defendant’s exhibit 25 indicates that the total price for the new motorcycle was $20,670. The parties were allowed a trade-in allowance of $15,500 for the prior motorcycle. The total payment due at delivery was $6,107.84. Defendant’s exhibit 23 indicates a withdrawal from Craig’s trust account for $6,107.84. The plaintiff lists the value of the 2002 Harley Davidson motorcycle at $12,000. The defendant lists the value of this same bike at $23,000. No other evidence was offered relative to the value of this asset.

Other than the marital residence, the plaintiff’s pension, the tractor, the motorcycle and some small miscellaneous bank accounts, the only other asset in this marital estate would be the defendant’s 1/3 ownership in her father’s house. Besides an estimate on the defendant’s financial affidavit, there was no evidence of the current fair market value of this property. The defendant estimates her interest in this property to be worth $34,183. The court has no reason to dispute this valuation.

The plaintiff has approximately $130,000 worth of term life insurance and the defendant has approximately $100,000 worth of term life insurance. The plaintiff carries the family on the medical insurance policy provided to him through the City of CT Page 924 Torrington.

This court has considered the provisions of Connecticut General Statute § 46b-82 regarding alimony, § 46b-84 regarding child support, § 46b-81(c) regarding property division, § 46b-62
regarding attorneys fees and Public Act No. 02-128 regarding post-majority payment of college expenses. The court enters the following orders:

A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION:
1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared separate, single and unmarried.

B. BY WAY OF ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT, MEDICAL INSURANCE, AND LIFE INSURANCE
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff, in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines, the sum of $80.00 per week as and for child support for the parties’ one minor child. Said support shall be paid until the child reaches the age of 18, unless the child is still a full-time high school student, then until the child graduates from high school or reaches the age of 19 years, whichever event shall first occur. Said support shall be paid by way of contingent wage withholding.

2. The plaintiff shall provide medical insurance for the benefit of the minor child, as the same is available to the plaintiff though his place of employment. In the event medical insurance for the minor child is not available to the plaintiff through his place of employment then the defendant shall provide for said insurance if it is available to her through her place of employment at reasonable cost.

In accordance with the guidelines, the parties shall split all unreimbursed medical expenses, 69% by the plaintiff and 31% by the defendant.

3. Both the plaintiff and the defendant shall each maintain $50,000 worth of term life insurance, naming the minor child irrevocable beneficiary, so long as either has an obligation to support the child.

4. The parents shall alternate claiming the child as an exemption for tax-related reasons, with the defendant claiming CT Page 925 the child for the year 2004 and alternating every year thereafter. The parties shall also share equally any deductions permitted by law relative to the marital residence for tax year 2004.

5. The court retains jurisdiction regarding post-majority education payments pursuant to P.A. 02-128.

6. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as and for periodic alimony the stun of $170 per week for a period of five years. Thereafter, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the sum of $90.00 per week as and for periodic alimony for an additional three years. Said alimony shall be non modifiable as to term.

7. The plaintiff shall maintain $30,000 worth of term life insurance, naming the defendant as irrevocable beneficiary so long as the plaintiff has an obligation to pay alimony.

8. Each party shall be responsible for their own medical insurance. The plaintiff shall cooperate in any effort by the Defendant to maintain her present medical insurance coverage through COBRA.

C. BY WAY OF PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION, INCLUDING DEBT:
1. The defendant shall transfer all her right, title and interest in and to 62 Wilson Road, Litchfield, Connecticut to the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff shall hold the deed in escrow, pending the defendant’s receipt of $125,000 from the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant said $125,000 no later than sixty days from the date of this judgment. The defendant shall vacate the former marital residence within forty-five days of her receipt of the $125,000 and the plaintiff shall thereafter have exclusive use and possession. In the event the plaintiff fails to pay to the plaintiff the $125,000 within 60 days of this judgment, the property shall be immediately listed for sale to a bona fide third-party purchaser. If the parties cannot agree upon a sales price within two days, the property shall be listed for sale at $400,000. The listing price shall be reduced every three months thereafter, until it is sold. While the property is on the market, the defendant shall have exclusive use and possession, unless the parties otherwise agree. The defendant shall keep the property well maintained and in a condition that would maximize the sale of the property. So long as the defendant maintains possession of the marital residence, CT Page 926 she shall be responsible for all costs associated therewith. At all times during the defendant’s tenancy, the plaintiff shall pay the defendant an additional $30 per week above and beyond the alimony order set forth above.

Upon the sale of the property, the net proceeds shall be divided between the parties .535% to the plaintiff and .465% to the defendant. Net proceeds shall be determined by deducting from the gross sales price the realtor’s commission, all customary and usual closing costs, including attorneys fees, and the two mortgages.

2. The defendant shall retain all her right, title and interest in and to 84 Dartmouth Street, Torrington, Connecticut.

3. The plaintiff shall retain his pension with the City of Torrington. In exchange, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the sum of $22,755 payable in three equal installments of $7,585, the first payment due within one year of this judgment; the second payment due within eighteen months of this judgment and the third and final payment due within twenty-four months of this judgment. Said sum shall be secured by a promissory note and mortgage deed attached to the 62 Wilson Road, Litchfield, Connecticut property. In the event the property is sold, said sum shall become immediately due and payable to the defendant.

4. The plaintiff shall have all right, title and interest in and to the tractor and all the accessories relating thereto.

5. The plaintiff shall have the option to either pay the defendant $8,000 in exchange for release of defendant’s claim to the 2002 Harley Davidson motorcycle or the motorcycle shall be sold to a bona fide third-party purchaser and the net proceeds shall be split 50/50. The plaintiff shall have sixty days to buy out the defendant’s interest; or otherwise the motorcycle shall be made immediately available for sale. The plaintiff shall not commit any waste relative to the motorcycle and shall maintain it in proper working order. At all times that the motorcycle is available for sale, it shall not be used by anyone. The plaintiff shall be responsible to market the motorcycle for sale.

6. Each party shall retain all bank accounts held in their name, free and clear of any claim by the other.

7. The plaintiff shall deposit $8,400 into Craig’s Torrington CT Page 927 Credit Union Trust account within eighteen months of this order. This account shall be immediately held in the defendant and Craig’s name only. The plaintiff shall execute whatever documents are necessary to effectuate this provision. The money shall be used only for Craig’s education, unless the parties otherwise agree. In the event Craig does go to college, these funds shall be exhausted first before either parties’ respective contribution is determined. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff, no more than once per year, and only upon request, a copy of the year end account statement.

8. The plaintiff shall retain the 2003 Ford and the defendant shall retain the 1998 Chevy. Each party shall be responsible for all costs associated with ownership of each vehicle. Each party shall execute any documents that are necessary to effectuate the intent of this provision.

9. Each party shall be responsible for the debts as listed on their financial affidavits submitted at the time of trial, with the exception of those debts relative to Craig’s orthodontic or medical care. These bills shall be paid by the parties in the same fashion as unreimbursed medical expenses referenced above.

10. The parties shall divide all their personal property to their mutual satisfaction. In the event of dispute the parties shall have the matter resolved by an independent mediator. Any cost incurred for mediation shall be split 50/50.

11. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorneys fees.

12. The plaintiff shall either agree to file an amended 2003 return with the Federal and State Government, filing jointly with the defendant or otherwise pay to the defendant $1,448 within thirty days of this judgment. In the event an amended joint return is filed for 2003, any refund or liability shall be split 50/50.

BY THE COURT,

Bozzuto, J.

[1] During the pendency of this action, the plaintiff vacated the martial residence and moved into his parents’ home which abuts the marital residence.

CT Page 928

[2] Anthony Zordan retained Lot 8b and built a house upon the same where he and his wife reside. The plaintiff’s sister lives on a nearby property.
[3] The current balance of this mortgage is approximately $51,000.
[4] The first mortgage is approximately $51,000 and the home equity loan is approximately $35,000.
[5] One or both mortgages have been refinanced several times during the course of the marriage.

CT Page 929