2007 Ct. Sup. 15970
No. FA 06-4023805Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
September 21, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
JOHN R. CARUSO, J.T.R.
By complaint dated June 5, 2006, the plaintiff wife, Linda S. Zuboff, commenced this action seeking a dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown and other relief. The defendant husband appeared though counsel. Both parties appeared with counsel on April 23 and April 24th of 2006, presented testimony and introduced documentary evidence. At the conclusion of trial counsel were directed to file briefs on the subjects of gifts and inheritances.
The court makes the following initial findings of fact. It has jurisdiction. All statutory stays have expired. The allegations of the complaint are proved and true.
Judgment shall enter dissolving the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
The court, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the exhibits and briefs, makes the additional findings of fact. The parties have been married for 27 years. They separated in June of 2006. Three children were born to the wife following the marriage and are issue of the parties. Gregory, the youngest child was born on March 1, 1990. He attended Loomis and participated in an internship for the summer of 2007 at Harvard. He has the use of a 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche which was purchased by the defendant with part of his mother’s inheritance. Since this car is dedicated for Gregory’s use the court is excluding its value for distribution purposes. Lauren, the second youngest was born on May 19, 1985 and is attending Ithaca College. She has the use of a 1994 Nissan Maxima also purchased from the defendant’s inheritance. The parties differ on its value but the court will also exclude this vehicle for distribution purposes and the difference in values will not be a factor. The oldest child, Jamie, has completed college and is attending Suffolk Law School. She is engaged to be married. The defendant, in his proposed orders, agrees to be responsible for Gregory’s tuition due Loomis Chaffee through high school graduation and the court reserves CT Page 15971 jurisdiction of any future educational support order. He further agrees to be responsible for Lauren’s tuition for her senior year at Ithaca and the remainder of Jaimee’s law school tuition at Suffolk.
The plaintiff is 50 years of age and the defendant is 51 years of age. The plaintiff completed college and the defendant has completed law school. Presently, the plaintiff is employed as a development associate with the National Kidney Foundation of CT. She reports on her financial affidavit filed with the court on April 23, 2007 a gross weekly income of $769 and an adjusted net of $554 (including a 401K weekly deduction of $46). The defendant is a partner in the Manchester, Connecticut law firm of Zuboff Onore, LLC. On his financial affidavit also dated April 23, 2007 he reports a gross weekly income of $1,400 and a net of $1,035. Neither party reports any other income but there are significant other assets which produce income and are reinvested, and which must be factored into the court’s determination of alimony and child support.
The parties, throughout their marriage, had totally different ways of dealing with the daily issues that confront married couples with a growing family. The plaintiff tends to be confrontational and the defendant has a “laid back” personality. The parties have had problems almost as long as they have been married. The plaintiff has had breast cancer which has been in remission for almost 10 years. The parties differ as to how supportive the defendant was of the plaintiff. There were financial issues and the parties’ respective families were financially supportive as hereinafter set forth. The parents of the parties did not get along with each other. The defendant’s mother died and his secretary of many years left him. His former law firm broke up. Considering all of the credible testimony the court finds that the causes of the breakdown of the marriage were equally attributable to the plaintiff and the defendant. Fortunately, their children are well adjusted and have a good relationship with both parents.
A major financial issue between the parties involved the court’s consideration of gifts and inheritances received by the parties from their respective families. The plaintiff’s brief was filed with the court on May 21, 2007 and the defendant’s brief was faxed to the court on May 23, 2007. It would appear that over the course of the marriage the plaintiff’s family made gifts in various forms in the range of $60,000 which benefited the parties and their children. On the other hand the defendant received over $325,000 recently from his mother’s estate of which he expended all but $184,000 for expenses attributable to the family. He also received a 2002 Lincoln from his mother’s estate and a gift of a 1972 Jaguar from his father. The parties agree on the value of the Jaguar but with respect to the Lincoln the plaintiff values CT Page 15972 it at $6,000 and the defendant at $11,000. There were no independent appraisals submitted by the parties. The court finds that the Lincoln has a value of $9,000. As to the division of assets the plaintiff seeks a 50/50 division of all of the assets including both vehicles and consideration of future taxes on her tax deferred accounts and capital gains taxes on the possible future sale of the marital residence. The court agrees with the plaintiff on the tax effect of the tax deferred accounts but disagrees on the capital gains tax on the marital residence as being too speculative. The defendant agrees with a 50/50 division of assets excluding the balance of his inheritance from his mother. The court agrees in part with the defendant and has considered the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the inheritance and has given weight to when the inheritance was received as well as the amounts already expended for the family.
Although the parties are in agreement on the valuation of most of their assets, an examination of the financial affidavits, appraisals and the testimony of the parties, indicate some differences. The court will first consider the valuation of the marital residence located at 143 South Pond Road in South Glastonbury. Per her affidavit, the plaintiff estimates the value as $625,000 with a mortgage balance of $188,834 and a net equity of $436,166 (the property is titled in her name alone). The defendant’s estimates are $685,000, $187,000 and $498,000 respectively. Robert Haber, an appraiser called by the plaintiff testified that the fair market value as of April 12, 2007 was $625,000. Robert Stewart, an appraiser called by the defendant testified that the value as of November 6, 2006 was $695,000, as of December 12, 2006 $665,000, and as of April 23, 2007, $680,000. Considering all of the differing estimate and the testimony the court finds that the subject property has a fair market value of $652,500 and the mortgage balance approximates $188,000 for a net equity of $464,500. The next disagreement involves the value of the plaintiff’s YMCA tax deferred accounts. The net difference of the two accounts is $250, which is too nominal considering the aggregate assets with which the court is dealing, and the court accepts the plaintiff’s values.
The court has considered all of the statutory factors concerning custody and visitation set out in Connecticut General Statutes Secs. 46b-56, 46b-56a and 46b-59. The court has furthered considered all of the factors in Connecticut General Statutes Secs. 46b-81, 46b-82 and 46b-62 and other pertinent statutes, earnings and earning capacity differentials, causes for the breakdown of the marriage and the consequences of the financial awards set forth below.
1. ALIMONY (MEDICAL INSURANCE).
CT Page 15973
The defendant shall pay periodic alimony to the plaintiff in accordance with the following schedule. Said alimony shall be includible in the income of the plaintiff and deductible from the income for the wife for all applicable federal, state and local income taxes. Commencing one week from the date of this decision, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of $400 per week for 5 years, the sum of $350 for the next 5 years and the sum of $300 for following 5 years. Said alimony shall be non-modifiable as to term and shall terminate automatically upon the first occurrence of the following events: the death of either party; the remarriage or cohabitation of the plaintiff or 15 years from the date of Judgment. Each party shall maintain for themselves, at their own expense, medical/dental insurance coverage. However, either party may elect to have COBRA coverage through their spouse’s insurance at their own expense.
2. PARENTING PLAN.
The parties shall share joint legal custody of their minor child, Gregory. His principal residence shall be with the plaintiff. The defendant shall have liberal rights of visitation.
3. CHILD SUPPORT.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff child support in the amount of $200 per week for the benefit of Gregory. Child support shall be paid until such time as Gregory completes the twelfth grade, has attained the age of eighteen but in no event beyond the age of nineteen. In arriving at the amount of weekly child support the court has given consideration to interest and dividend income received on assets which has been reinvested and not distributed. Child support shall be secured by a contingent wage execution. The parties shall share equally all extracurricular activities of Gregory, including but not limited to sports and cultural activities, as well as the automobile insurance on the vehicle operated by him.
4. UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL EXPENSES AND MEDICAL INSURANCE.
The plaintiff shall maintain medical and dental insurance for the benefit of the parties’ two children, Lauren and Gregory, for as long as available through her place of employment or until each child reaches the age of 23 years. The cost of such insurance to the plaintiff shall be paid equally by the parties. Section 46b-84d of the Connecticut General Statutes shall apply. All unreimbursed medical and dental expenses shall be paid equally by the parties. The party seeking CT Page 15974 reimbursement shall, on a monthly basis, submit all documentation to the other party and reimbursement shall be made within 7 days thereafter.
5. EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES AND EDUCATION SUPPORT ORDER.
The defendant shall be solely responsible for the remainder of tuition due Loomis Chaffee through Gregory’s graduation and for Lauren’s senior year tuition at Ithaca College and any remaining tuition balances for Jaimee at Suffolk. The court reserves jurisdiction over the entry of an educational support order for Gregory pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 46b-56c.
6. DIVISION OF ASSETS.
The plaintiff shall retain or have transferred to her the following assets:
a. The marital residence located at 143 South Pond Road in South Glastonbury having a net value of $464,500 as found by the court subject to the existing encumbrances on said property from which she will hold the defendant harmless for the payment of same.
b. 2002 Lincoln Continental having a value found by the court of $9,000.
c. YMCA tax deferred account with a net after tax value of $18,750.
d. YMCA retirement account with a net after tax value of $17,930.
e. 401K National Kidney Foundation with a value of $2,800.
f. The Dreyfus Fund having a value of $6,000.
g. Any other assets solely in her name.
The defendant shall retain or have transferred to him the following assets giving consideration to his inheritance and his acceptance of educational obligations as set forth herein:
a. The offices of the defendant located at 34 CT Page 15975 Center Street in Manchester having a value of $97,000.
b. 2006 Chevrolet Avalanche having a net value of $13,000.
c. 1972 Jaguar having a value of $30,000.
d. The $2000 security deposit on his rental dwelling.
e. The Segal Associates joint account having a value of $169,000.
f. The Segal Associates account having a value of $88,000.
g. The Janney Montgomery Scott account having a value of $96,000.
h. Any other assets solely in his name.
In order to equalize the division of assets the plaintiff shall give a mortgage to the Defendant in the amount of $115,980 to be evidenced by her promissory note and secured by said mortgage. Said amount shall bear 3% interest and shall be due and payable upon the occurrence of the first of the following events: sale of the property, the refinance of the existing mortgage or the obtaining of a line of credit by the plaintiff secured by the property; when Gregory completes college (but not beyond the age of twenty-three); the cohabitation of the plaintiff or if the plaintiff no longer uses the property as her principal residence.
7. PERSONAL PROPERTY.
On April 23, 2007 the court approved and ordered a stipulation with respect to the ownership of certain assets by the defendant. The parties agreed and the court orders that the allocation of the parties’ remaining personal property shall be submitted to Robert Colucci for binding arbitration. The fees and cost of arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties. The court will not reserve jurisdiction. Gregory’s baseball card collection shall belong to him.
8. ATTORNEYS FEES.
CT Page 15976 Within 30 days from the date of this decision the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $10,000 for attorneys fees.
9. LIFE INSURANCE.
The plaintiff shall maintain her present life insurance for the benefit of Gregory until he graduates from college or attains the age of 23, whichever occurs first. The defendant shall maintain his present life insurance for the benefit of Gregory and the plaintiff as their interests may appear, as long as he is obligated to pay support or he is subject to an educational support order, or is obligated to pay alimony to the plaintiff.
10. LIABILITIES.
Each party shall be liable for the payment of the debts listed on their financial affidavits except those debts which are joint in nature. The joint debts shall be divided equally between the parties and each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other in connection with their obligation thereon.
11. TAX EXEMPTIONS.
The defendant shall be entitled to claim any and all of the children, issue of the marriage, as long as he is able to legally do so. The plaintiff shall provide any documents to the defendant to effectuate this order.
12. MAIDEN NAME.
The plaintiff’s maiden name, Linda Saffir, is restored to her.
SO ORDERED.
CT Page 15977