ADAMO v. ADAMO, No. FST FA 03-0195515 S (Jul. 7, 2005)


LEE ADAMO v. EMILIO ADAMO.

2005 Ct. Sup. 11046-d
No. FST FA 03-0195515 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
July 7, 2005

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
MARYLOUISE S. BLACK, JUDGE.

The parties intermarried on May 7, 1994 in the State of New York. The court has jurisdiction as the plaintiff has resided in the State of Connecticut since the year 2000. This is a second marriage of both parties with no issue of the marriage. The evidence clearly establishes that this marriage has broken down irretrievably with no hope of reconciliation. Judgment may enter dissolving the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The parties November 16, 2004 stipulation concerning personal property is incorporated by reference into the judgment and made an order of the court.

At the time of the marriage the plaintiff was fifty-three years old and in reasonably good health taking prescriptions for depression and anti-anxiety. The plaintiff is now sixty-three years old and is still treating for depression and anxiety. At the time of the marriage the defendant was sixty-five years old and in good health. The defendant suffered a stroke in the year 2000 with some residual physiological effects. Since the initiation of the divorce, the defendant has developed high blood pressure and suffers from anxiety. He is currently on medication for both conditions.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant had been married previously. The plaintiff has two adult children from her first marriage, a son and daughter. The plaintiff prior to this marriage was involved in a long-term relationship with a Mr. Berkowitz. She and Mr. Berkowitz purchased a home together in Coram in 1973 and proceeded to live together. During the early years of that relationship she stayed at home to care for her children of her first marriage. When she did work it was as a cocktail waitress in the evenings to ensure spending her days with the children. She later worked as a receptionist, in data entry and in various sales positions. When she met Mr. Adamo in 1993 she was a Corian sales representative earning $30,000.00 a year. From November 26, 2001 to May 4, 2004. Mrs. Adamo did not work. She did not look for work in 2002 CT Page 11046-e or 2003. (T. 12/14/04 p. 66.) Mrs. Adamo testified that she did not work from 2001 to 2004 because she was grieving the death of her marriage. (T. 12/15/05.) She is currently working twelve to fifteen hours in sales at a store in Westport, Connecticut earning fifteen dollars an hour. Mrs. Adamo graduated from high school and attended one year at a community college.

The defendant graduated from high school and is a self made man. He grew up in the depression in New York City working at the age of eleven to contribute to the family. He served in the military and then returned to New York City to begin work in the insulation business in Connecticut. He married, moved to New Canaan, Connecticut and later moved back to New York City to enable his first wife to pursue an acting career with Lee Strasborg. The first marriage ended in divorce. Mr. Adamo moved to Westport, Connecticut with his three sons, twins now aged 37 and youngest son now age 35. He started his own insulation company, Fairfield Insulation in 1963 and sold the business in 1995 to Cary Insulation, retaining ownership of the commercial building on Magee Avenue, Stamford, Connecticut. Mr. Adamo negotiated a five-year employment/lease contract with Carey which ended in the year 2000. He then went to work for his son creating data bases for Luxury Mortgage. He continues to work for his son on a limited basis given the commute and the state of his health.

The evidence presented at trial clearly depicts a marriage which began tranquilly and ended both abruptly and destructively. Mrs. Adamo testified that the first four to five years of the marriage were “wonderful.” She however attributed a Jekyll and Hyde personality to her husband during this time in which he would erupt into violent actions towards her. She however could not recall what events precipitated this behavior nor could she recall any specific dates. She never called the police although quite clearly she did so in November 2001 in response to an incident which was not as violent as the previous incidents, including choking her, fist in face, screaming at her and throwing her out of the house. (T. 11/19/04 pp. 3-4.)

Mr. Adamo testified that in his opinion the marriage started to breakdown in 1998. He claimed that Mrs. Adamo’s personality changed dramatically. She became very confrontational with him, their friends and people in general. She refused to let his children come to the house. She left the marital bedroom in November 2000. Everything finally erupted on November 26, 2001 when the parties were involved in a dispute concerning Mr. Adamo’s children spending time at the Westport house over the holidays. Suffice it to say both parties behaved badly. The police arrived and arrested both. Mr. Adamo left the house to go to his CT Page 11046-f residence in Amagansett. Mrs. Adamo remained in the Westport home.

Subsequently on or about December 3, 2001, Mrs. Adamo claimed that she heard Mr. Adamo enter the Westport residence. She called the police and left. She then claims that she pulled into the parking lot at Trader Joe’s only to see her husband’s car pull into the bank next door, the bank in which their money was deposited. She then went into the bank, saw Mr. Adamo sitting outside the Vice President’s office and then withdrew $97,941 from their joint account containing a total amount of $173,000. (T. 11/17/04 p. 90.)

Mr. Adamo however did not withdraw any monies until December 5, 2001. (T. 12/14/04 p. 104.) This very fact discredits Mrs. Adamo’s claims. Mrs. Adamo attempted to withdraw more monies from the joint account between December 3 and the 5, 2001. Following this incident the parties’ behavior towards the Nuveen accounts and personal property spiraled out of control and definitely out of character. The court attributes said behavior to frantic acts by desperate people.

In reference to the parties’ finances, Mr. Adamo has always placed any monies received from sale of assets or income in a joint account for the use of both parties. On the other hand, when Mr. Berkowitz died, Mrs. Adamo owned the Coram property. She sold the Coram property for $125,000. (T. 12/14/04 pp. 13-14.) She netted $102,000 after payment of all fees. This net amount was placed in her individual bank account. (Ex. J.)

Prior to her marriage to Mr. Adamo, Mrs. Adamo had incurred significant credit card debt, outstanding overdue utility and other bills as well as indebtedness to friends. (T. 12/14/04 pp. 20-41.)

Mrs. Adamo used the proceeds from the sale of the Coram property to pay off her debts as well as a debt of her daughter. In addition she gifted monies to her son and daughter. (T. 12/14/04 pp. 20-33.) The net proceeds from the sale of Coram, after payment of these gifts and expenses was $13,800.00. Mrs. Adamo deposited the sum into their joint checking account. (T. 12/15/05.)

In reference to the property it is readily admitted that Mr. Adamo owned the McGee property, the house in Amagansett and the house in Westport prior to the date of the marriage. (T. 12/14/04 pp. 9-10.) Mrs. Adamo testified that she had nothing to do with the acquisition of said properties, little to do with the preservation of the properties. No capital improvements were made to the properties. Any appreciation in the value of the properties was passive. (T. 12/14/04 pp. 11-12.) CT Page 11046-g

In the parties’ claims for relief both the plaintiff and defendant focus on the appreciation in value of these three properties as the basis for an order of property distribution. The parties negotiated a stipulation of value of the properties agreeing as to the values of McGee and Amagansett for the years May 1, 1994, March 1, 2002 and November 16, 2004. (Defendant’s Ex. A.) The valuation date is in dispute. The defendant contends that the appropriate valuation date is 2002, recognizing November 26, 2001 as the separation date and the date of the breakdown of the marriage. The court declines to accept this date. The court relies on the language in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81 and § 46b-82
specifying that the date of dissolution determines the valuation date of the estate. Sunbury v. Sunbury, 216 Conn. 673, 676 (1990). This rule holds true despite a significant time period between separation and the actual dissolution. Rolla v. Rolla, 48 Conn.App. 732, 743-44 (1998). Accordingly, the court accepts the 2004 date as the proper valuation date of the appreciation of the assets. In reference to the Westport property the court accepts the valuations provided by Michael B. Gold, MAI, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.

In considering what award of property is appropriate, the court must consider the statutory criteria listed in Conn. Gen. Statutes § 46b-81(c) and 46b-82(c). The court has discussed many of these factors in the previous pages. The court declines to find fault in either party. This is a short lived second marriage. The husband, to his credit, has worked hard to acquire the assets he had acquired prior to the marriage. The court has some difficulty with the wife’s work history, particularly after the year 2001 when the husband was required to pay the mortgage and taxes on the Westport property. Nonetheless the court must consider the wife’s age, lack of assets, lack of vocational skills, her health, estate, liabilities and needs in comparison with the husband’s in reference to fashioning support.

The court finds that the appreciation on the Westport property to be $635,000.00 less the mortgages which predated the marriage for a total appreciation of $98,086.49. The appreciation on Amagansett is $635,000.00. The appreciation on McGee is $337,500.00. The total appreciation on all three properties is $1,070,586.40. The court awards the plaintiff thirty-five per cent of the appreciation or $374,705.24 as a lump sum settlement. The defendant has 90 days or until October 7, 2005 to pay said lump sum. Until the payment is made in full, the wife will continue to reside in the Westport home. The husband will continue to pay the mortgage and taxes on said property. The wife will vacate the premises immediately upon payment in full. The $24,000 remaining in the escrow account held by Attorney O’Connor will be divided equally between CT Page 11046-h Attorney O’Connor and Attorney Rutkin for any outstanding legal fees. The parties will retain all assets listed on their respective financial affidavits. The parties will be solely responsible for all liabilities listed on their respective affidavits.

So Ordered.

MaryLouise S. Black CT Page 11046-i