2008 Ct. Sup. 15118
No. FA-08-4036190Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
September 8, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DYER, J.
This action for dissolution of marriage involving two pro se parties was initiated by a complaint that the plaintiff filed with the court on March 18, 2008. The court finds that all statutory stays have expired, and that the court has jurisdiction over the matter.
As noted, both parties have filed pro se appearances. A limited contested dissolution hearing was held before the undersigned on September 8, 2008. Both the plaintiff and the defendant appeared before the court and testified on that date. In addition to that testimonial evidence, the court has also carefully considered the sworn financial affidavit of each party. The court finds that the following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence at trial:
FACTUAL FINDINGS
The plaintiff and the defendant were married on November 30, 1991 in Hartford, Connecticut. When the pro se plaintiff filed this action, he erroneously indicated on the complaint form that the defendant’s last name was Thomas. At trial, the wife explained that she had never been known by the name Thomas. She stated that although her birth name was Emma Thompson, her name was Emma Marshall at the time of her marriage to the plaintiff. The defendant also stated that she did not formally assume her husband’s name during the instant marriage. Accordingly, the court directed the clerk’s office to retitle the docket entry for this case as Norman Greenland v. Emma Marshall. Both parties have resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for at least one year prior to the commencement of this action. No minor children have been born to the defendant wife since the date of this marriage.
The plaintiff, who is 54 years old, lives in Windsor. He is employed as an auto body technician by a local auto body shop and earns a net weekly wage of $400 from that employment. His financial affidavit indicates that his weekly expenses, including weekly payment on a credit CT Page 15119 card debt, total $376. The plaintiff testified that his health is fair. He experiences blood pressure problems and has contracted pneumonia three times.
The defendant, age 58, resides in Hartford. She provides foster care for her grandson and receives food stamps. The defendant testified at trial that she receives foster care payments of $196.99 per week and weekly food stamp benefits of $34.18. As caretaker of her teenage grandson, she receives medical insurance under the State HUSKY medical insurance plan. Her grandson, Semaj, is also covered under this medical insurance plan.[1]
The defendant was employed as a mail clerk by Fleet Bank from 1997 until 2004. She testified that she was laid off from that position in 2004 after she experienced difficulties arranging for transportation to and from her job. After her unemployment compensation benefits expired, her only income (other than occasional small monetary assistance from family members) has been the foster care stipend that she receives for Semaj.
The defendant stated at trial that she recently applied for Social Security Disability Benefits. She testified that she has been under a physician’s care for approximately two years and suffers from leg and back problems. She claims that these maladies cause her to experience pain if she sits or stands for lengthy periods of time. The defendant also testified that she has been diagnosed with high blood pressure and carpal tunnel syndrome
The parties have been separated for at least 13 years, and possibly longer. Although the parties disagree about the proximate cause of their marital difficulties, both agree that their marriage has broken down irretrievably, and that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
Neither of the parties has any type of pension or retirement account, and there are very few assets of the marriage. The plaintiff owns a checking account with a very small balance, and a 1994 Toyota truck, that has equity of $2,800. The plaintiff also has credit card debt, which was incurred between 1991 and 1996, with an outstanding balance of approximately $400. The defendant’s affidavit indicates that there are no funds in her savings and checking accounts with a local credit union. The defendant testified that she does not own an automobile or any other assets.
The sole area of disagreement during this limited contested trial was CT Page 15120 the issue of alimony. The defendant claims that the plaintiff, who is originally from Jamaica, only married her in order to obtain residency in the United States. The defendant argues that the plaintiff should provide her with spousal support. The plaintiff denies the allegation of a “sham marriage,” and indicates that he is financially unable to pay alimony.
FINDINGS AND ORDERS
The court has carefully considered the testimony and claims of both parties at trial, and their respective financial affidavits. The court has also considered all the statutory provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 46b-81 and 46b-82 in determining its financial orders.
The court finds that the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably. A judgment dissolving the marriage for that reason is hereby entered.
The plaintiff husband is awarded exclusive ownership of the 1994 Toyota truck, and the checking account listed on his financial affidavit.
The plaintiff shall assume, pay, and hold the defendant completely harmless from the credit card debt with the balance of $400 that is listed on his financial affidavit.
The parties have been separated for at least 13 years, and, based on the evidence presented, the court is unable to find that either party bears greater responsibility for the breakup of the marriage. However, the defendant has been unemployed since 2004. Although the outcome of her recent application for social security disability is uncertain, she testified credibly that she suffers from medical problems that could limit or curtail her future employment. Her only income is derived from the benefits that she receives for the foster care of her teenaged grandson. For the forgoing reasons, the court hereby orders that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as periodic alimony, the sum of $1 per year, for a period of ten years from the date of this judgment. Said periodic alimony shall be non-modifiable as to term.
SO ORDERED.
CT Page 15122