2006 Ct. Sup. 9259
No. FA 05-4010750Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
May 19, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
CONSTANCE L. EPSTEIN, JUDGE.
By complaint dated March 17, 2005, the plaintiff wife commenced this action seeking: a dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, equitable distribution of the assets and liabilities of the marriage, restoration of her maiden name, and other relief.
The contested issues in this matter are: the distribution of the limited assets of these parties; whether alimony should be awarded; and, if so, the amount and duration of alimony payments. Testimony and evidence were presented on January 4, 2006 and January 20, 2006, and, based on the evidence presented at trial, including the parties’ stipulations, the following findings are made.
The parties were married on August 1, 1981, in Hartford, Connecticut. Both of the parties have lived in the state of Connecticut for at least one year prior to the filing of this action. All statutory stays have expired. The marriage has broken down irretrievably, with no hope of reconciliation. No agency or any municipality of the state of Connecticut has contributed to the support of either party. No minor children have been born of the marriage.
The parties have stipulated as to several issues and the stipulated facts pertinent to the unresolved disputed claims are:
The parties’ present gross weekly incomes (excluding overtime) are $450 for the defendant husband and $797 for the plaintiff wife, excluding any overtime pay.
The wife works as an administrative assistant at Pratt Whitney and the husband works in maintenance at Swift Sons, Inc.
CT Page 9260
The husband moved out of the marital home in early April 2004.
The American Eagle Federal Credit Union debt in the amount of $19,958.66 as of April 6, 2004 is a joint debt of the parties.
The balance on that American Eagle debt was $19,621.24 as of December 15, 2005.
As of September 15, 2005, the amount of the CitiFinancial debt was $1,016.
The marital home, located at 40-42 Nesbit Avenue in West Hartford, Connecticut, is a duplex owned by husband and wife (one half) and the wife’s daughter (one half), and the present full fair market value of that home is $300,000.
The first mortgage on the marital home has a principal balance of $108,283.18 as of November 16, 2005.
The parties took out a second mortgage on the home in March 2002 in the amount of $54,509.30, $10,000 of which was given to the wife’s daughter, and the balance on the second mortgage on the marital home was $48,932.22 as of November 19, 2005.
Wife has an Employee Savings Plan at her place of employment in the amount of $6,076.42 as of December 16, 2005.
Wife has a Pension Plan at her place of employment in the amount of $9,894.42 as of September 12, 2005.
Husband received, after attorneys fees, an award of $5,222.18 in 2004 as compensation for a work-related injury (workers’ compensation).
The parties are at different levels in terms of earning capacity and it is not anticipated that this situation will change. The net income of the parties is proportionate to the gross income to which they had stipulated, and the court premises CT Page 9261 its orders on the net income. In addition, there is a question as to whether Mr. Fernandez will be able to retain his present job in light of the impending closure of the business that constitutes his employment.
The plaintiff’s present job and her present earning capacity are the product of her diligent efforts, during the course of the marriage, to improve herself by completing her high school education and procuring the employment in which she is presently engaged. She is to be applauded for those accomplishments. She contends that she should not be penalized for those efforts in having to pay alimony because her husband could have accomplished the same results. However, the court is not convinced that the results would have been the same even if such opportunities presented themselves and were seized upon by the husband.
There certainly were some difficult times for this couple, but it would appear that the relationship was sufficiently valuable to these parties that they did make one, perhaps more, attempts to reconcile, with unfortunate results. While there may have been some heated and acrimonious confrontations, and the court does find some fault on the part of the husband in the verbal and threatening behavior that he demonstrated from time to time, the court does not find fault sufficient to greatly affect the decision-making as to the financial aspects of the termination of this marriage of almost 25 years. As to the claim that there was one altercation in which the defendant struck the plaintiff, and from which she now claims a hearing deficit, the court finds that there was insufficient evidence to support the claimed injury.
The court has considered all of the testimony, stipulations and exhibits entered at trial as well as the factors set forth in C.G.S. Sec. 46b-82 and 46b-81, and other pertinent statutes and common law, the parties’ net earnings, earning capacities and the consequences of the financial awards set forth below. Judgment shall enter dissolving the marriage of the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and the court issues the following Orders.
The Husband is to quit-claim his right, title and interest in the marital home at 40-42 Nesbit Avenue in West Hartford, Connecticut, and the Wife is to refinance the property within 90 days. The parties have stipulated as to the value of the home in the amount of $300,000 and the parties own half of the interest in the house. Consequently, their stipulated interest is CT Page 9262 $150,000. Upon refinancing, the Wife is to repay the parties’ one-half share of the balance on the first mortgage ($54,141) and also the parties’ share of the balance on the second mortgage ($38,932). From that balance of $56,927, the wife is then to pay off the balances on the American Eagle debt (approximately $19,621) and the Financial debt (approximately $1,016) and she is to be credited with the amount of the marital debt she has paid since the husband’s departure from the marital home ($7,236). After these calculations, the balance of $29,054 in equity is to be split 55%/45% to the wife and husband, with the wife receiving $15,980 and the husband receiving $13,074.
Wife is to pay to the husband alimony in the amount of $100 per week for a period of 10 years.
Each party is to be responsible for his or her own health insurance.
Wife shall retain total interest in her United Technologies 401k employee savings plan and Husband shall not be entitled to any claim therein. Wife shall transfer to the Husband 35% of her United Technologies Pension Plan (valued at $9,894.42 as of September 12, 2005) by a qualified domestic relations order.
Each of the parties is to retain ownership of the vehicle listed on each of their respective financial affidavits, and, if necessary, to immediately execute any transfer documents needed to register same with the appropriate state agency, to complete that registration and to provide notification to the respective insurance carriers of any change in ownership. To the extent there is any pending loan, tax or other upkeep expense associated with either of those vehicles, each party is to be responsible for those costs related to the vehicle listed in each of their financial affidavits, and to hold the other harmless therefrom.
Other than as set forth above, each of the parties is to be responsible for the debts listed on each of their financial affidavits.
The husband shall be obligated to pay to wife 50% of any proceeds received in the future in the event of a further settlement of his workers’ compensation claim.
The wife’s birth name of Gilbert is restored to her. CT Page 9263