2010 Ct. Sup. 15263
No. FA10-4011416-SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown
July 26, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ELPEDIO VITALE, J.
The parties were married on April 4, 2009 in Cromwell, Connecticut. The parties have no minor children issue of the marriage. The court has jurisdiction. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably and is hereby dissolved.
Based upon the relevant, credible evidence, including documentary evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, this court makes the following findings:
The plaintiff-wife is age 49. In October 2009, she was treated surgically for breast cancer. Her health at the present time is good. She is employed at Middlesex Hospital as a Patient Account Coordinator, and has been employed at the hospital for twenty-seven years. Her gross weekly wage is $940.00, with a net income of $621.69. She is the record owner of 238 Cimarron Road, in Middletown, where she resides. She has three bank accounts in her name only, as well as stocks, and bonds. In addition, she owns an IRA, certificate of deposit, jewelry, and is provided with a pension fund through the hospital. All of said assets, listed on her financial affidavit, are solely in her name. In addition, she is the sole title holder of four motor vehicles and a motorcycle. The court finds the value of all of the plaintiff’s assets to be as claimed on her financial affidavit. The Citizens Bank account is the result of the settlement of her parent’s estate. The defendant currently has no assets. Although he recently obtained employment, he has no bank accounts. When the parties married, he did not bring any property or other financial assets to the marriage.
The plaintiff met the defendant, Richard Gilbert, in October 2008. The defendant moved into her residence in November 2008, and the parties married in April 2009. The defendant permanently left the residence in the last week of March 2009. The plaintiff commenced this action in January 2010.
CT Page 15264 The defendant, Richard Gilbert, was unemployed during the parties’ courtship and marriage. He never received a paycheck during the marriage, and made no substantial financial contribution to household expenses during the marriage. The defendant on occasion worked odd jobs for his brother. He never received unemployment compensation. At no time during the marriage, or while the parties cohabited prior to the marriage, did the defendant contribute financially toward the mortgage, taxes, medical or automobile insurance, utilities, household maintenance, water, or clothing. On rare occasions, the defendant contributed toward the food expenses, but the vast majority of the food expenses were incurred by the plaintiff. The defendant was provided with the use of the plaintiff’s motor vehicles, with no expense to him. The defendant was covered on the plaintiff’s health insurance. The defendant utilized said insurance to undergo a medical procedure which he previously had been unable to afford. The defendant was unable to afford this procedure prior to marrying the plaintiff. The defendant incurred no cost for this surgery. The plaintiff paid for the parties’ wedding reception, and wedding rings. The gifts received did not cover the entire cost of the wedding. In short, the plaintiff provided the defendant with a home, food, clothing, utilities, vehicles and insurance for which he contributed nothing financially. The plaintiff was the alleged victim of domestic violence in March 2010 for which the defendant was arrested and is currently being prosecuted. The defendant is currently subject to an order of protection as a result, with the plaintiff-wife being the protected party. It was the defendant’s second arrest for domestic violence involving the plaintiff. The defendant also has currently pending a charge of operating under the influence as the result of a motor vehicle accident. Since the defendant was listed as a driver on the plaintiff’s auto insurance policy, her auto insurance premiums have increased as a result of this incident.
As previously noted, the defendant has no bank accounts, and only recently became employed. He has no assets. The defendant previously owned an older model Mazda, but at the time of the marriage, it was unregistered, uninsured, and of questionable mechanical condition. The vehicle was sold by the defendant to a third party.
The defendant owes $16,000.00 to the State of Connecticut in child support arrearage, and approximately $5,000.00 to the I.R.S. for a 2002 tax obligation. His failure to include these liabilities in his financial affidavit adversely affected his credibility.
During the marriage, the defendant performed routine maintenance and upkeep of the premises. The maintenance consisted of routine chores such as raking leaves, clearing brush, painting a ceiling and a wall, and a CT Page 15265 partial power wash of the exterior. He dug small holes to install a “fire pit” and a “pond tub.” He once repaired a leaky faucet, and replaced a hose on the hot water heater. All parts and materials needed for this routine maintenance were paid for by the plaintiff. There was no evidence that these menial, routine tasks added any value to the home. The defendant also “removed to the primer” the paint on the plaintiff’s Corvette. The parties had intended to restore the vehicle for eventual sale. The chores completed by the defendant were spread out over the eleven-month marriage.
The plaintiff-wife attempted to assist the defendant in locating a job. She used the internet, and other employment resources. She did not envision or agree that the defendant remain at home without gainful employment. The defendant claimed to be seeking gainful employment. The defendant used her vehicles to “get coffee” during the day. The defendant’s lack of contribution to household expenses, domestic violence, and additional arrest for operating under the influence resulted in a breakdown of the marriage. The court finds that the fault for the breakdown of the marriage should be attributed to a great extent to the defendant-husband.
The court has reviewed the parties’ proposed orders. Neither party is seeking an award of alimony. In essence, the defendant claims that he is entitled to a lump sum financial award as compensation for the modest household tasks he performed during this very short-term marriage. In the court’s view, there is nothing in the defendant’s claimed non-financial contribution that remotely entitles him to a financial award. The meager tasks performed, in comparison to the financial and other benefits conferred by the plaintiff, do not in the court’s view justify any such award. The defendant’s conduct is noteworthy only for its overall negative impact on this short-term marriage.
Therefore, based on the evidence presented, and reasonable inferences therefrom, including documentary evidence, financial affidavits, and relevant statutory factors, including C.G.S. § 46b-81 and 46b-82, and applicable case law, the court enters the following orders:
1. No alimony is awarded to either party.
2. The marriage is dissolved.
3. The plaintiff is to receive her entire Federal Income tax refund of $4,581.00. The I.R.S. check in that amount is ordered turned over to the plaintiff from escrow.
CT Page 15266
4. The parties are responsible for all debts listed on their respective financial affidavits.
5. All requests contained in the defendant’s written proposed orders, and any made orally at the hearing of this matter, are hereby denied.
6. The defendant shall be removed as a covered party on the plaintiff’s medical and automobile insurance.
CT Page 15267