2005 Ct. Sup. 11768-bi
No. FA 02-0126053Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at Norwich
August 23, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
JACK W. FISCHER, JUDGE.
This is a dissolution of marriage action brought by the plaintiff, Hilda J. Zeigler, against her husband, Paul M. Appleton. After carefully considering all of the evidence presented, as well as the applicable criteria of the General Statutes and case law, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The parties were married on October 11, 1991 in Hawaii. One or both of the parties has resided in Connecticut for twelve months continuously prior to the commencement of this action and this court has jurisdiction. There is one minor child born of the marriage, Mackenzie George Appleton, who was born on January 18, 1993. No state or municipal assistance has been received during the time of the marriage.
The parties have arrived at an agreement regarding custody of the minor child which the court has accepted and that agreement is incorporated into this memorandum by reference.
The court finds that the allegations of the complaint are proven and true in that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and is ordered dissolved. The court has not been persuaded that either party bears a greater responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage.
The plaintiff has a college degree in nursing. She became a member of the United States Navy in 1984 and served until 1992 at which time she left the active service in anticipation of the birth of the minor child. The plaintiff testified that she and the CT Page 11768-bj defendant discussed this issue and that they agreed that the defendant should remain in the service because he had more time in the service. The defendant disputes this version of events. During the course of the marriage, the plaintiff has worked as a nurse on a part-time basis. She is currently employed full time as a public health nurse for the Town of Groton. The court finds that her current net weekly pay is $654.00.
The defendant has been a member of the United States Coast Guard since 1979. He worked full time throughout the marriage and contributed all of his earnings to the marriage. Currently, he earns a net gross pay of $1,502.00. The court finds that his current weekly net pay is $1,151.00.
Prior to the marriage, the plaintiff, as well as her siblings, received an interest in farmlands in Ohio through gifts and inheritances. At the present time, due to these gifts and inheritances the plaintiff and her siblings each has a one third interest in two tracts of farmland in Ohio (the “Ohio Property”). These properties have been producing various amounts of income for a number of years which has then been divided between the plaintiff and her two sisters. This income has not been constant. During the marriage the plaintiff’s share of this income was deposited into the parties’ joint account and was used to make various purchases and home improvements. The plaintiff also received cash gifts and bequests which she put in the bank and invested in various financial funds and which she kept segregated from the family funds. In 1993 the defendant was transferred from Hawaii to California. The parties purchased a home in Encinitas (the “California Property”) for $184,000.00. The plaintiff used $57,000.00 of her separate funds for the down payment and closing costs and procured a mortgage for the balance. They still own the property and have stipulated that it has a value of $665,000.00 with a mortgage balance of $91,000.00. In 1998, the defendant was transferred to New London, Connecticut. The plaintiff came reluctantly. The parties purchased a home in Ledyard for $154,500.00 (the “Connecticut Property”). The plaintiff used her separate funds for the down payment and closing costs of approximately $23,000.00. The current balance of the CT Page 11768-bk mortgage is $129,000.00. A joint appraisal done in 2003 put the value of the property at $238,000.00. The plaintiff claims it is now worth $260,000.00 while the defendant claims that it is worth $280,000.00. In addition, the plaintiff used her separate funds to purchase the family cars.
During the pendency of this case, the defendant purchased a house in Williamsburg, Virginia for $149,000.00 using approximately $10,000.00 of the parties’ joint funds for the down payment. The defendant did not get court permission to do this and thus violated the automatic orders. The most recent appraisal of the property in 2003 put its value at $152,000.00.
Based upon its findings and upon balancing all the equities, the court issues the following orders:
1. Given the parties’ educational backgrounds, current earning capacities and the amount of assets that each will receive, no alimony is ordered for either party.
2. Connecticut Property — The parties are to agree on a realtor and the property is to be sold within six months, and after all costs and debts are satisfied the plaintiff will receive the first $23,000.00 and any remaining equity is to be split equally.
3. California Property — The parties are to agree on a realtor and the property is to be sold within 90 days and after all debts and costs ate satisfied, any remaining equity is to be split equally between the parties.
4. Virginia Property — The defendant shall be responsible for obtaining a realtor and the property shall be sold within 90 days. The defendant will be responsible for all costs and debts. The plaintiff will receive the first $5,000.00 of any remaining equity and any remaining equity shall be split equally. If the sale does not result in any equity the defendant must pay the plaintiff $5,000.00 and will be responsible for any losses resulting from the sale of the property.
CT Page 11768-bl
5. Ohio Property — The plaintiff will retain these properties free and clear of any claim by the defendant.
6. The plaintiff will receive twenty-six percent of the gross of the defendant’s Coast Guard pension as it existed on the date of the filing of this action by garnishment. Husband shall name the plaintiff as a survivor beneficiary for her share and shall elect a survivor beneficiary plan which will continue her share upon the defendant’s death. She shall receive all cost of living and other adjustments to her share that may come due. The plaintiff will prepare the pension division order and the defendant shall cooperate in providing any relevant documentation that is otherwise not available to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff will retain her pension from the Town of Ledyard in its entirety, free of any claim by the defendant.
7. Each party is responsible for their own debts as listed on their respective financial affidavits.
8. The plaintiff shall receive the 2005 Toyota and the defendant shall receive the 1997 Honda and each shall hold the other harmless from any debt or liabilities pertaining thereto.
9. The court will retain jurisdiction for any post-majority education support orders pursuant to the Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56c.
10. Medical — Each party will be responsible for their own medical coverage.
11. Child Support and Coverage — Under the parties’ child custody agreement, the plaintiff will be the primary custodian of the minor child. As noted, the court has found that the plaintiff has a weekly net income of $654 and the defendant has a weekly net income of $1,151.00. Under the Child Support Guidelines effective August 1, 2005, the presumptive child support obligation is $301.00 per week. The CT Page 11768-bm defendant is responsible for 63% of this amount, which the court finds to be $190.00 per week. The defendant shall maintain health insurance coverage, including reasonable dental coverage, for the minor child and the plaintiff will pay the defendant for one-half of these costs. If the parties agree, the plaintiff may provide the health insurance coverage, including reasonable dental coverage for the minor child and the defendant will pay the plaintiff for one-half of these costs. Under either scenario, the parties shall equally divide the costs of any unreimbursed medical and reasonable dental expenses for the minor child.
12. Each party will alternate claiming the minor child on their income tax return, with the plaintiff having odd years and the defendant having even years.
13. Life Insurance — The defendant shall obtain or keep a life insurance policy in the amount of $250,000.00 naming the minor child as the sole irrevocable beneficiary until the minor child graduates from high school or reaches the age of nineteen.
14. The defendant will retain his mutual funds, IRA and bank accounts free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff. The plaintiff will retain her mutual funds, stocks, IRAs, annuities and bank accounts clear of any claim by the defendant.
15. The court will retain jurisdiction over the division of retirement pay and the real estate sales until the court’s orders in those regards are satisfied.
16. Each party will retain any refunds from their 2004 taxes free and clear from any claim of the other.
Jack W. Fischer, J. CT Page 11768-bn