2005 Ct. Sup. 2637
No. FA 04-0735712Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
February 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
BRENNAN, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
ARTICLE I The Dissolution of the Marriage
It is found that all of the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint have been proven and that the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably. The marriage is ordered dissolved for those reasons.
ARTICLE II General Background Information
The plaintiff wife, who is forty-nine years of age, and the defendant husband, who is forty-seven, were married in Wethersfield, Connecticut on May 16, 1987, seventeen years ago. They have two minor sons, Spencer who is fourteen and Austin, who is six.
After the parties married they lived in the defendant’s parent’s home. They later purchased a condominium in Coventry which they sold at a loss in 1995. Previous to that date the parties had decided to return to Wethersfield where they felt the school system offered better opportunities for their children. In 1992 they purchased a one-half interest in the present marital home located at 944 Ridge Road, Wethersfield. This transaction and its aftermath, the principal source of controversy in this matter, will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent article.
Plaintiff instituted the present action in March 2004 stating her reason therefor as follows: “For eleven years we had a hard time. I told Andrew I wasn’t happy or in love anymore.” CT Page 2638
ARTICLE III The Educational and Employment History of the Parties
A. Plaintiff
Plaintiff graduated from Bloomfield High School in 1974 and later attended Hartford Secretarial School. She stated that since then she had been in the instruction area off and on for thirty years. For a time she was a secretary at Trinity College where she also attended classes and obtained a 3.5 G.P.A. in her studies. She has never worked full-time since the children were born and most recently she has become involved in teaching a special type of physical therapy. Her training in this area was provided by the Town of Manchester and obtained in Beverly, Massachusetts. She testified that the most she has made as an instructor was $320 per week. For two and one half or three years in the 1990s plaintiff cared full time for an elderly relative of the defendant in the marital home for which the parties were reimbursed in various forms.
Plaintiff’s current financial affidavit indicates she has a total net weekly income of $75 from her part-time employment as an exercise instructor, in the Ski Market and from Energy Source.
B. Defendant
Defendant graduated from Wethersfield High School in 1975 and in 1979 received a B.A. degree in political science from George Washington University. For five years thereafter he was an aide to several state political leaders before obtaining his present employment at the Travelers Insurance Company in 1984. This work was briefly interrupted in 2004 when he performed similar duties for another company for which he received greater income. His current financial affidavit indicates that his present net weekly income from Travelers is $598.
It should also be noted that defendant is also presently serving as a member of the Wethersfield Town Council to which he devotes about four hours per week.
ARTICLE IV CT Page 2639 The Consideration of Other Evidence which Relates to Sec. 46b-81c C.G.S.
A. The Health of the Parties
1. Plaintiff
In describing her present health plaintiff testified that she has “early emphysema. I take sleeping pills and an anti-depressant for stress. I weigh 108 pounds.” She appears to be in reasonably good health.
2. Defendant
The court’s notes make no reference to defendant’s physical condition, but he appeared to be in excellent health.
B. Fault
The court notes that there was verbal abuse by both parties. This issue, however, is not a prominent factor in the consideration of this statute.
C. Other Factors
The defendant clearly has a greater opportunity than does plaintiff for the future acquisition of capital assets and income. His vocational skills exceed those of plaintiff and his employability appear more assured.
D. The Circumstances Surrounding the Acquisition and Occupation of the Marital Home
In 1992 the parties and defendant’s parents devised a lofty but ill-starred plan which all hoped would provide a more comfortable home for plaintiff and defendant and a better education for their children. Dorothy Keller, an elderly cousin of defendant’s mother, had been living in California but later sold her home there and moved to a convalescent home in this area where her expenses were $3,000 per month.
Because the parties had no financial resources of their own it was arranged that they, with money advanced by defendant’s parents, would purchase a one-half interest in the marital home with Dorothy Keller purchasing the other half. The loan of $88,000 from defendant’s parents to both parties was secured by a CT Page 2640 note and mortgage to them with interest at 7 percent per annum. Dorothy Keller would move from the convalescent home to the marital home, would be cared for by plaintiff and the parties would receive a credit of $3,000 per month on their loan from defendant’s parents. This arrangement went on for more than two years, but as so often happens with the best laid plans, things did not work out quite as planned. After a while the parties sought and obtained monthly cash payments which were spent for family purposes rather than in reduction of the purchase money mortgage. The testimony indicates that the last payment on this loan was made in 1995. Dorothy Keller’s one-half interest in the property was conveyed to defendant’s parents on August 14, 1992. Seymour Adil, defendant’s father, testified that as of June 2004 the amount owed by the parties to defendant’s parents, including accumulated interest was $121,399. In addition, the parties during this period also obtained a home equity loan. This was secured by a second mortgage on their half interest in the marital home. The present unpaid principal balance on this transaction is $58,000.
The parties are fairly close in their valuation of their one-half interest in the marital home, plaintiff stating the value to be $125,000 while defendant’s figure is $130,000.
Considering the value of the parties’ one-half interest to be $127,500 and the total of the two encumbrances to be at least $179,399, it is found that their total interest in the marital home has a negative value of $51,899. This court observes that prospective purchasers of the parties’ one-half interest in the single-family marital home are extremely limited. Its order concerning this property in Article V reflects its attempt in small measure to disentangle the existing title to the family home.
E.
The court notes also that during the course of the marriage plaintiff received $30,000 from her deceased mother’s estate which was later expended for family purposes. By comparison, the financial assistance rendered the parties by defendant’s parents when the marital home was purchased was secured by a mortgage and note followed by a later threat of foreclosure.
F. Conclusions
CT Page 2641
Having reviewed all of the evidence as it relates to Sec. 46b-81c C.G.S., this court finds that the marital estate of the parties, with the exception of the marital home, shall be divided as set forth in Article V following.
ARTICLE V The Conclusions of this Court Reached After an Examination of the Evidence Which Has Been Summarized in Article IV, supra
A. Plaintiff is ordered to convey to defendant by quit claim deed all her right, title and interest in No. 944 Ridge Road, Wethersfield, CT.
Defendant in turn will hold plaintiff harmless with regard to all encumbrances on said property, including but not limited to the mortgage and note from the parties to defendant’s parents and the home equity loan and mortgage on said property.
B. The balance of the marital estate is distributed to the parties as follows:
1) Plaintiff Shall Take and Have: 1997 Volvo V90 $5,945 Webster Bank (checking account) 556 Hartford Federal Credit Union 50 isc, clothing and jewelry —
*IRA Travelers Life and Annuity (55% of the marital portion) 102,300 77 shares of CitiGroup Smith Barney(55%) 3,388 _____ $112,239 2) Defendant Shall Take and Have: 2002 Honda Accord value $16,000 loan 17,066 equity —
Paintings — miscellaneous items $2,000 Checking and savings accounts (CitiBank and Liberty Bank) —
Smith Barney shares/CitiGroup 63 Shares (45%) 2,772 at $44 per share
*IRA Travelers Life and Annuity (45%) of CT Page 2642 the marital parties thereof 83,700 ______ $88,532
*Note: The children’s UGTMA accounts and 529 plans are to remain as presently established by the parties for the children’s benefit.
*The marital portion of defendant’s IRA and Travelers Annuity may be somewhat less than as stated on defendant’s financial affidavit. The court’s notes indicate he began employment at Travelers in 1984 and married in 1987.
ARTICLE VI Orders Concerning the Minor Children
A. Those portions of the shared parenting agreement of the parties which have not been redacted and which include paragraphs 3 through 7 of the agreement are made orders of the court and are attached hereto.
B. The defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff as child support the sum of $190 per week.
C. Defendant shall claim the two children as defendants on his income tax each and every year until such time as plaintiff earns $25,000 or more. At that time each of the parties shall take one child as a deduction until only one child remains as an eligible deduction. At that point they shall alternate the deduction on a yearly basis. Each parent will sign whatever documentation is necessary for those deductions to be taken in accordance with this paragraph no later than January 31st of the year the taxes are to be filed.
D. This court shall retain jurisdiction concerning the college education expenses for the children.
E. Defendant shall maintain health insurance for the benefit of the minor children as the same is available at his place of employment at reasonable cost and expense.
ARTICLE VII Orders Concerning Alimony
CT Page 2643
Having considered all of the evidence as it relates to the provisions of Sec. 46b-82 C.G.S., in particular the length of the marriage and the disparity between the incomes of the parties, this court issues the following orders concerning alimony.
Defendant shall pay to plaintiff as alimony the sum of $175 weekly for a period of three years, the sum of $100 weekly for an additional three years and thereafter the sum of $50 weekly for a final three years, after which time all alimony payments shall cease and terminate.
Said order is modifiable only as to amount but shall sooner terminate upon the death of either party, the remarriage of the plaintiff or her cohabitation with an unrelated male within the meaning and intent of Sec. 46b-86(b) C.G.S.
ARTICLE VIII Other Orders
A. Counsel Fees
No counsel fees are awarded to either party.
B. Liabilities
Each of the parties shall be solely responsible for all liabilities listed on his or her financial affidavit and shall hold the other party harmless in that regard.
C. Life Insurance
Defendant shall continue to maintain his existing life insurance policy with Cincinnati Life in the face amount of $150,000 with plaintiff as irrevocable beneficiary during such time as he shall be required to pay alimony to the plaintiff. The face value of the policy may be modified to reflect the total alimony payments due plaintiff.
D. Income Tax Returns
During such time as defendant shall be required to pay alimony to the plaintiff, the parties shall annually commencing April 15, 2005 exchange federal income tax returns. CT Page 2644
E. Health Insurance
Defendant shall permit plaintiff to have COBRA coverage on his existing policy for the maximum period prescribed by law at plaintiff’s sole cost and expense.
F. Other
Each of the parties shall execute all documents necessary to carry out the orders of this court.
BY THE COURT
BRENNAN, JTR
AMENDED PENDENTE LITE AGREEMENT
The plaintiff and defendant agree as follows:
1. [BLACKED OUT]
2. [BLACKED OUT]
3. Custody:
The parties shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor children.
4. Routine Parenting Schedule:
a. Mom shall have routine parenting time each week from Monday morning at 8:30 a.m. until Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m.
b. Dad shall have routine parenting time each week from Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m. until Friday morning at 8:30 a.m.
c. The parents will alternate parenting responsibility on the weekends from Friday at 8:30 a.m. until Monday at 8:30 a.m.
d. The alternating weekend schedule shall commence at a date to be chosen by mom.
5. Holiday Schedule: CT Page 2645
a. New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, Easter Sunday, Veteran’s Day and Independence Day shall be with the parent whose day it is in connection with the routine parenting schedule in paragraph 4.
b. Whenever a “Monday holiday” (Martin Luther King, Presidents, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day) follow Dad’s week end his parenting time shall extend until Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m.
c. Mothers Day shall always be with mother; Father’s Day shall always be with Father.
d. Mom will have access to the children for 5 hours on Thanksgiving Day.
e. Dad shall have the minor children each year on Christmas Eve Day commencing at 8:30 a.m. until the times in paragraph f.
f. In even years the children shall be with mom from 9 p.m. on December 24th until noon December 25th. Dad shall have the children from noon December 25th until 8:30 a.m. December 26th at which time the routine parenting schedule shall recommence.
g. In odd years the children shall be with dad overnight from December 24th until noon December 25th and with their mom from noon December 25th until 8:30 a.m. December 26th at which time the routine parenting schedule shall recommence.
6. Vacations:
Each parent may have exclusive access to the children for up to two weeks each year for the purpose of vacation travel. Each parent shall notify the other at least 30 days in advance of his or her intention to take the children on vacation. Each parent shall advise the other of their destination, departure and return dates, and a phone number where he or she can be reached while away.
If there is a conflict with dates Mom shall have first choice of vacation dates in odd years, dad shall have first choice in even years. Under this portion of the agreement notice shall be by May 1st.
7. Other:
The parents shall strive to create a mutually respectful, CT Page 2646 co-operative parenting relationship for the benefit of their children. Each parent shall support and encourage the natural development of the children’s loving relationship with the other parent. Each parent will keep the other informed of any significant developments that affect their children’s health, education or social development. Neither parent will make unilateral decisions of a non-emergency nature that may have a significant impact on the children. Both parents will cooperate in meeting the children’s needs for intellectual, social and spiritual growth. Neither parent will attempt to place any unreasonable restrictions on the other’s phone contact with the children or the ability of the other parent to participate in various significant events in the children’s lives. The parents will attempt to be flexible in their implementation of the routine and holiday parenting schedule described in this agreement in order to accommodate changing circumstances.
8. [BLACKED OUT]
9. [BLACKED OUT]
10. [BLACKED OUT]
11. [BLACKED OUT]
12. [BLACKED OUT] CT Page 2647