2010 Ct. Sup. 13686
No. FA 09-4112001SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at New London
June 30, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
GOLDBERG, JTR.
Both parties appeared and were represented by counsel. All statutory stays have expired and the court has jurisdiction.
Having heard the testimony in this matter, the court finds as follows:
The plaintiff and defendant, whose maiden name was Murphy, intermarried on November 18, 1989 in Old Lyme, Connecticut; that one of the parties has resided continuously in Connecticut for more than one year preceding the filing of this complaint; that there is one minor child issue of the marriage; namely, James Walker Cranston, born June 2, 1993; that no other children have been born to the defendant since the date of the marriage of the parties; that neither party nor the minor child has received assistance from the State of Connecticut or any municipality; and that the marriage has broken down irretrievably without hope of reconciliation.
Plaintiff is a 62-year-old man in good health who served in the U.S. Navy for 21 years and has a pension in pay status in the gross amount of $699.23 per week with a net weekly amount of $552.93. He is an engineer who has been employed at Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation for the past twelve years earning a gross weekly salary of $1,890.39 and a net weekly amount of $1,040.86. The present value of his EB pension is $169,000.00 and the value of his EB 401(k) is $211,486.00 as of the date of the trial on May 28, 2010. Plaintiff also has some earnings from teaching navigation and from doing some snow plowing, but the amounts are relatively insignificant. He also has sufficient credits to be eligible for Social Security benefits.
Defendant is a 52-year-old woman who has been employed as a teacher throughout the marriage and has been earning a gross weekly pay of $1,394.27 and a net weekly of $909.72. She has had some medical problems but has been able to continue with her teaching career. She is vested in the Teachers’ Retirement System which has a present value of CT Page 13687 $368,500.00, has $99,842.87 in her TSA accounts and has accumulated $24,358.76 in her IRA during the marriage. She is not a participant in the Social Security system and is not eligible for benefits thereunder.
The parties jointly own a boat that was purchased in 2008 for $350,000.00 and has a loan balance in the amount of $305,000.00. They had owned two other boats during the marriage and plaintiff testified that he wanted a faster boat. Although somewhat reluctant, defendant jointly executed the documents to purchase the new boat. Defendant testified that she had never been out on the new boat but on September 20, 2009, she went to the boat unannounced and found plaintiff with a lady friend whom he met through a dating service. The boat has been listed for sale since January 2010. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has interfered with potential sales, although they have agreed on a fair market value of $312,000. Due to market conditions and the expenses for the sale of the boat, it is expected that a substantial loss will result from the sale.
The marital residence is located at 8 Chester Court, Salem, Connecticut which the parties stipulated has a fair market value of $378,000.00 subject to encumbrances totaling $267,000.00 resulting in equity of $111,000.00. Defendant alleges that she spent $50,000.00 of her pre-marital assets toward the acquisition of the marital residence. Plaintiff contends that he expended $12,500.00 for improvements to the marital residence. He also contends that he performed a great deal of “sweat equity” toward improving and maintaining said residence. After a 21-year marriage, the court concludes that the marital residence is an asset that has been maintained by contributions from both parties over the years and accordingly should be divided equally by the parties.
In seeking an equitable distribution of the assets of this marriage, defendant alleges that the present value of plaintiff’s potential Social Security benefits should be considered as part of the marital assets and should be applied as an offset or credit to the present value of her teacher’s pension. Each party filed briefs in support of their positions. The court notes that there are no Connecticut Supreme Court or Appellate Court decisions specifically on this issue. In a recent Superior Court case, namely, Hernandez v. Hernandez, 2009 WL 4685868 (Conn.Super.) November 17, 2009, the court concluded that Social Security benefits do not constitute marital property subject to distribution in a divorce case, and also concluded that, under the preemptive federal law, an equitable offset should not be made because of one party’s anticipated eligibility for Social Security benefits. This court concurs with those conclusions, but recognizes that the potential for a party to receive Social Security benefits is a factor to be considered in ultimately fashioning orders distributing the marital assets of this marriage. CT Page 13688
Having heard the testimony of the parties, observed their demeanor, considered the financial affidavits of the parties, the exhibits offered in evidence and the statutory criteria of Conn. Gen. Stats. §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82, the court concludes that the marriage is broken down irretrievably with the defendant being more at fault for the breakdown. Accordingly, the court enters a decree of dissolution in this matter and enters the following orders:
1. The parties shall share joint legal custody of the minor child with primary residence with defendant mother. Plaintiff father’s access shall be as frequent as can be agreed upon between the minor child and his father.
2. Plaintiff shall pay to defendant $250.00 per week as child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.
3. Each party to maintain their own medical insurance coverage. Plaintiff shall continue to maintain his son on his medical, dental and vision insurance so long as the same remains reasonably available to him through his place of employment or his prior military service. Any uncovered or unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid 55% by plaintiff father and 45% by defendant mother in accordance with the Guidelines.
4. Defendant is ordered to cooperate with plaintiff to effect a sale of the parties’ boat. The plaintiff shall be responsible for payment of all expenses related to the boat until the closing of the sale. Any loss resulting from such sale shall be borne solely by the plaintiff.
5. Within 30 days of this judgment, the defendant shall vacate the residence and quitclaim her interest in the marital residence at 8 Chester Court, Salem, Connecticut to the plaintiff. Plaintiff shall refinance same within 90 days to remove defendant’s name from the mortgage. Plaintiff testified that he could raise a maximum of $43,000.00 through the refinancing and offered to pay same to defendant for her interest in the marital residence. Since the equity in the marital residence is $111,000.00, the plaintiff shall pay the defendant $55,500.00. Accordingly, plaintiff shall pay defendant the sum of $43,000.00 from the refinancing within 90 days and shall execute a promissory note to the defendant in the amount of $12,500.00 payable at the rate of $1,000.00 per month together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum commencing January 1, 2011 and on the first day of each month thereafter until said note has been paid in full. CT Page 13689
6. Plaintiff shall retain his retirement accounts, his EB 401(k) account, his checking and savings accounts, and his stocks. Defendant shall retain her retirement account, her TSA accounts, her IRA account, her checking and savings accounts and her stocks.
7. Commencing six months from the date of this judgment, plaintiff shall pay to the defendant alimony in the amount of $200.00 per week for a period of eight years, the death of either party, remarriage of defendant or cohabitation with an unrelated male pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b-86b, whichever is first to occur. Said alimony is modifiable as to amount but not as to term.
8. Each party shall retain their respective automobiles free from any claim from the other and shall hold the other harmless from any liabilities or expenses associated with said vehicles.
9. Each party shall be responsible for payment of the debts listed on their respective financial affidavits except that plaintiff shall pay the sum of $10,000.00 to defendant to compensate her for his use of the home equity line of credit related to the payoff of credit card debt, said sum being payable within 60 days of this judgment.
10. The parties shall divide their personal property. In the event they are unable to agree on the division of said personal property, then they shall submit the dispute to binding arbitration within ninety days of judgment. The cost of such arbitration shall be divided equally between the parties.
11. Plaintiff and defendant shall equally contribute and pay for their son’s college tuition expenses limited to the UCONN cap for in-state resident students as set forth in C.G.S. § 46b-56c.
12. The parties shall alternate claiming the minor child as a dependency exemption for federal and state tax purposes with defendant taking the exemption in 2010.
13. The bonds and savings accounts for the minor son of the parties and the defendant’s daughter shall be retained by the defendant for the use and benefit of the aforesaid children.
CT Page 13690