JOHN TURNER, JUDGE.
On February 18, 2005, the plaintiff wife filed in this court a Complaint seeking dissolution of her marriage to the defendant, custody of and support for the minor children, alimony, an equitable division of their property and debts, and other relief. The return date was March 1, 2005. On February 18, 2005, the defendant husband appeared through counsel and filed an Answer and a Cross Complaint for dissolution of his marriage to the plaintiff. He seeks alimony, joint legal custody of the minor children, and an equitable division of their property and debts. Thereafter, the matter was continued for a limited contested final hearing. The plaintiff and the defendant appeared at trial with counsel who represented them throughout.
The final hearing on the complaint commenced on August 18, 2006. It was continued on August 29th whereupon it concluded. Both the plaintiff and the defendant testified. The plaintiff called one other witness, Daniel Conte, who qualified as an expert in the field of real estate appraisals. The defendant called two witnesses, Sergeant Kevin Ahern of the Shelton Police Department and Richard Principe, who qualified as an expert in field of real estate appraisals. No other witnesses were called. Each introduced numerous exhibits.
FINDINGS:
After hearing and a careful review of the credible and relevant evidence offered during the trial, and a review of the judicially noticed court records, the court finds the following:
The plaintiff resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for at least twelve months immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff married the defendant by her maiden name of Laura Ann Moleski on April 28, 1989, in Bridgeport, CT Page 20252 Connecticut. There are two minor children, ages 16 and 13, that are issue of this marriage, Joseph Thomas Joaquim, born on May 21, 1990, and Mathew Vincent Joaquim, born on January 20, 1993. No other children have been born to the plaintiff since the date of the marriage.
The State of Connecticut has not contributed financial assistance for the support or maintenance of either party. The State of Connecticut did not appear in this case. The allegations of the complaint are found to be true. The parties are separated and living apart, and have been since October 2005. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably. This court has jurisdiction over the marriage of the parties.
The plaintiff is 42 years of age. The defendant is age 44. They have been married for 17 years. This is the plaintiff's first marriage and the defendant's second. The plaintiff has an Associates degree in Art obtained from the Housatonic Community College in 1984. The defendant is a 1980 high school graduate. He has had no further formal education since then.
The plaintiff worked throughout the marriage, except for the one year that she remained out of work after the birth of each of their two children. She worked in the printing industry until he was laid off in 2000. She then worked in an alternative program for high school students for four years. She is currently employed by the Town of Shelton's Board of Education as a paraprofessional and works in a library at an elementary school. She is employed there for ten months of the regular school year. During the summer she is employed for two months at a different school. In September she returns to the elementary school's library. The plaintiff's average annual earnings through 2003 were $15,800.00. She currently earns $18,750.00 per year.
The plaintiff has problems with discs in her back that sometimes causes her to have back spasms. She receives medical treatments for anxiety and her back. She is on prescribed medication for anxiety and high blood pressure. She is able to perform her job in the library notwithstanding her anxiety, high blood pressure, disc or back problems.
The defendant worked continuously throughout most of the marriage. Until September 2004, he worked in the printing industry as a pressman. At the beginning of the marriage he was working three jobs. He continued to work three jobs for about CT Page 20253 seven years to support the household. In November 2000, he was seriously injured when a moving truck struck his stopped car. After the accident be was unable to work for many months. He received eight months of medical treatments and then returned to work. He suffered pain in his neck as a result of the accident and eventually had to undergo three surgeries.
In September of 2001 he underwent his first surgery. He had discs replaced in his neck and a steel plate inserted. After the first surgery he was angry and hurting. He was in constant pain, had nightmares, and could not sleep lying down. He returned to light duty work after three months. He had seizures. He had never experienced a seizure prior to the accident. While at work he suffered a seizure. During the seizure a fusion was shattered. He damaged and broke pins that had been placed in his neck during the first surgery.
In January 2002, four months after the first surgery, he underwent a second surgery. Subsequent to the second surgery, a blood clot was discovered to be forming in his neck. He underwent a third surgery. The defendant was again out of work for three months. Unlike the first two times he was out of work following surgery his employer did not pay him for the time he missed following the third surgery. He became very depressed after the seizures and the surgeries and even more angry because of his overall medical condition. After three months he again returned to work. He was only able to perform light duty tasks. His employer assigned him office tasks but he did not meet his employer's expectations. In September 2004, after 14 years with the same employer in the printing industry, he was laid off.
The defendant's average annual earnings through 2003 were $43,600.00. In September 2004 and prior to his lay off he earned $24.80 per hour and worked a 40-hour week. His annualized income in 2004 was $51,500.00. After the layoff he searched for a job via the computer and through the newspaper. With the help of the plaintiff he secured a job in a sporting goods store in March 2004 with an annual salary of approximately $19,000.00. He earned $9.00 per hour as a sales associate. He worked in the sporting goods store until he was laid off in September 2005. He has not held a job since then. He has no current income. He has applied for social security disability income but has not yet been approved and awarded disability income. He is not unwilling to work nor does he claim that he is unable to work. After ten months of searching for a job and numerous interviews with no CT Page 20254 success he believes that prospective employers will not hire him because of his medical condition.
The defendant continues to have constant neck pain and headaches, he is unable to sit for long periods and he continues to experience depression, neurological problems and seizures. His last seizure occurred on June 29, 2006. He takes Topomax for his seizures and Zoloft for depression. He sees a doctor every three months for depression and he sees his primary caregiver very six months. The plaintiff maintains medical, dental and eye care health insurance for herself, the children and the defendant through her employment. The defendant has no other health coverage available to him. His medications and doctors' visits are all paid for though the plaintiff's health insurance.
In August 2004, the plaintiff and defendant received a net settlement of $280,977.25 for the injuries sustained by the defendant from the accident that occurred on November 16, 2000. The plaintiff was not injured or involved in the accident. They created a trust fund for each of their two children's college education. Ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars of the settlement proceeds was deposited into each child's trust account. The plaintiff was designated trustee for Joseph and the defendant was designated trustee for Mathew. The remaining $260,977.25 was deposited into a jointly owned Noyes Rider Capital Funds Account. Plaintiff and defendant jointly used monies from the account to pay household bills, to buy a new car for plaintiff, add on a deck to their marital home, upgrade the kitchen, and to make other improvements to the home. In October 2005, plaintiff withdrew $10,000.00 from the account to pay household expenses and to pay towards her attorneys fee for this case. There is currently $183,505.00 remaining in the Noyes Rider account.
From the beginning of the marriage on April 28, 1989, through the date of the accident on November 16, 2000, the plaintiff and defendant had a good relationship. For eleven years plaintiff and defendant had a "very good marriage". The defendant was a good provider, a good husband, a good father and constantly did things around the house. Their relationship and marriage took a dramatic turn for the worse after the accident. The November 16th accident, in which the defendant was seriously injured when he was rammed by a truck while sitting in his stopped car, altered the life of this family. It was the beginning of the breakdown of this marriage. CT Page 20255 The defendant's disposition and conduct changed dramatically after the accident. He became angry and bitter. He drank a lot and had a problem maintaining sobriety. He denied that his drinking was a problem and he declined to seek help. He became verbally abusive to the plaintiff. Before long each engaged in calling the other disgusting, hurtful names and being verbally abusive towards the other. The verbal abuse escalated to mutual threats of physical harm and violence.
On some occasions preceding domestic arguments that resulted in the police being called to their home, the plaintiff and defendant consumed alcohol together. As the defendant's drinking increased, his anger became more manifest. He lashed out at the plaintiff grabbing, pushing, shoving and kicking her. He punched walls and doors and sometimes created holes in them. The Shelton police were called seven times by the parties between February 9, 2005, and August 14, 2006, for domestic incidents. On October 9, 2005, the defendant was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The defendant was required to vacate the residence pursuant to a restraining order the plaintiff obtained against him.
The parties jointly own their marital residence at 24 Pequot Trail in Shelton. The house was built on an unimproved lot in 1989, shortly after they were married, over a period of eleven months. The plaintiff's brother and brother-in-law were the builders. The defendant served as the general contractor. The plaintiff's father loaned the parties $10,000.00 to acquire the lot. He was repaid by the parties after they secured a construction loan mortgage. After the house was completed, they resided together in it until October 2005. Until their separation the plaintiff and defendant pooled all of their income and mutually used it for the benefit of the household.
The marital residence has a current fair market of $292,500.00. It is currently encumbered by a first mortgage with a principal balance of $97,000.00 and a second mortgage with a principal balance of $32,000.00. The court finds that the marital residence has an equity value of $163,500.00. The defendant would like for the house to be sold at "a suitable time" and the net proceeds divided equally. The plaintiff would like to retain the house as a residence for her and the two minor children, free and clear of any claim by the defendant. The plaintiff has purportedly been pre-approved for a refinance mortgage loan, which would reduce the monthly mortgage payments by one-half. CT Page 20256
Since September 2005, the defendant has not contributed towards payment of the first mortgage, the equity line of credit which is secured by a second mortgage, the property taxes insurance or the maintenance and upkeep of the property. He did increase the equity line of credit by withdrawing $5,100.00 from it to pay towards his attorneys fee for this case. Since September 2005, the plaintiff has paid all of the expenses associated with the property, including the first and second mortgages and replacement of the furnace at a cost of $5,336.00 to her. Since October 2005, she has made all of the payments on their joint credit card, debts totaling approximately $1,700.00. Upon filing for dissolution of the marriage, the plaintiff unilaterally withdrew $12,900.00 of the approximately $15,000.00 deposited in the parties joint savings account and used it to pay household expenses.
The defendant has no income. He has had to draw from his 401k to pay his weekly expenses and court-ordered child support. Since October 2005, his 401k has been reduced from 20,000.00 to $10,000.00. He has requested another distribution of $5,000.00 from his 401k.
In entering the following decree the court has taken into consideration among other things, the length of the marriage, the cause of the breakdown of the marriage, the age of the parties, their health, skills, employability, amount and sources of income, distribution of the marital assets, their resources, and their respective ability to acquire work and future income. The court has considered all of the evidence in the light of the statutory factors in Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-81 and § 46b-82 and hereby enters the following orders.
ORDERS:
1. Judgment is entered dissolving the marriage of the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and each is now declared to be unmarried;
2. The plaintiff is awarded alimony in the amount of one ($1.00) dollar per year for a term of eight years. The alimony may be modified pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b-86(b), and shall terminate upon the death of either party or pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b-86(b);
CT Page 20257
3. The defendant is awarded cross alimony in the amount of one ($1.00) dollar per year for a term of eight years. The alimony may be modified pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b-86(b), and shall terminate upon the death of either party or pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b-86(b);
4. The plaintiff shall be responsible for her own health insurance;
5. The plaintiff shall cooperate with the defendant to obtain COBRA benefits for the defendant, without any cost to plaintiff and at the defendant's expense, through the plaintiff's health insurance provider;
6. The parties shall have joint legal custody of the minor children. The plaintiff shall be the primary physical custodian of the minor children. She shall have final decision-making authority but shall consult with the defendant as to medical and educational issues involving the children;
7. The defendant shall have reasonable, flexible and liberal telephone access and parenting time with the children subject to their educational, social and athletic commitments, and subject to their express wishes;
8. Plaintiff and defendant shall participate in the children's therapy as recommended by, and to the extent deemed necessary by the children's therapist;
9. The defendant shall pay child support to the plaintiff in accordance with the child support guidelines;
10. Until such time as the defendant has obtained employment commensurate with his earning capacity of at least $19,000.00 per year, he shall continue to make child support payments by Monday of each week to the plaintiff in the amount of $116.00 per week, based on his substantial assets and from his assets;
11. The plaintiff shall maintain health insurance for CT Page 20258 the benefit of the minor children, as made available to her though her employment, and at a reasonable cost. In the event that health insurance for the benefit of the minor children is not available to the plaintiff through her employment at a reasonable cost then, in that event, the defendant shall secure health insurance for the benefit of the minor children if it is available to him at a reasonable cost. Any un-reimbursed healthcare expenses incurred for the minor children shall be paid by the plaintiff and defendant in accordance with the child support guidelines, currently 100% by plaintiff;
12. The plaintiff shall maintain her life insurance policy, in the face amount of $20,000.00, naming the minor children as primary beneficiaries of the policy on her life, until they respectively reach the age of eighteen. She shall pay the premium due and shall annually provide proof of payment to the defendant;
13. The defendant shall maintain his life insurance policy, naming each of the minor children as a beneficiary of the policy on his life, in an amount of not less than $125,000.00 each, until they respectively reach the age of 18, or for as long as he has an obligation to pay child support. He shall pay the premium due and shall annually provide proof of payment to the plaintiff;
14. The plaintiff shall remain designated as trustee for Joseph and the defendant shall remain designated as trustee for Mathew over the ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars settlement proceeds deposited into the trust fund created for each child's college education. The funds in the educational trust accounts shall be first utilized to pay for the post-secondary education of each child. Any balance remaining in the account shall be distributed to each child as they attain the age of twenty-three;
15. The court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56c regarding any future orders for the post-secondary education of the parties' minor children;
CT Page 20259
16. The plaintiff shall retain all of her rights, title and interest in the marital residence. The defendant shall quitclaim his rights, title and interest in the marital residence to the plaintiff within fifteen (15 days) from the date of judgment. The Plaintiff shall be responsible for payment of the mortgages, taxes, and insurance and she shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless on the mortgages;
17. The plaintiff shall deliver to the defendant a promissory note in the amount of sixty-one thousand seven hundred fifty ($61,750.00) dollars, payable to the defendant without interest as his share of the equity in the property, and a mortgage deed to secure payment on the note, upon receipt of the defendant's quitclaim deed. The note shall become due and payable upon the earliest occurrence of (a) the death of the plaintiff, (b) the remarriage of the plaintiff, (c) the plaintiff living with another person under circumstances which the court finds should result in the note becoming due and payable, (d) the sale or refinance of the property, (e) the youngest child graduates from high school or (f) January 20, 2011;
18. The defendant shall pay to plaintiff within twenty-one days of judgment the sum of thirty-two ($32,000.00) dollars from the Noyes/Rider account. The defendant shall thereafter be entitled to the remaining funds in the Noyes/Rider account;
19. The plaintiff shall retain all of the funds in her People's Bank checking and savings account listed on her financial affidavit in the amount of $700.00. The defendant shall retain all of the funds in his Newtown Savings Bank and People's Bank checking accounts listed on his financial affidavit in the amount of $936.00;
20. The plaintiff shall retain her IRA account and ING retirement account with the City of Shelton valued at $8,606.00, free and clear of any claim by the defendant. The defendant shall retain his 401k plan account valued at $10,000.00, free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff;
CT Page 20260
21. The defendant shall have sole ownership of the Sea Nymph boat with trailer, the utility trailer and the two kayaks valued at $1,050.00, and he shall indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless with respect to any claim or liability arising therefrom, or any expense incurred in connection with the ownership of them;
22. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of her personal jewelry valued at $2,500.00;
23. The plaintiff shall have sole ownership of the 2004 Honda Accord and the 1995 Plymouth Voyager automobiles. The defendant shall have sole ownership of the 2001 Mazda Tribute SUV automobile. Each party shall execute any and all documents required to confirm ownership. Each party shall be liable for any unpaid liability or taxes thereon and each shall indemnify and hold the other harmless from any such claim;
24. The defendant shall be entitled to the big screen television, one of the two sofa sets designated by the plaintiff, one mountain bike and one of the remaining 5 bikes designated by the plaintiff, a bike rack, one of the three full sets of luggage chosen by the plaintiff, the gun safe, his hunting clothes, the power tools, the hand tools, a lawn mower chosen by plaintiff, and the remaining items in the shed except for the snow blower and leaf blower. The defendant shall also be entitled to the car topper, his fishing poles and equipment, and golf clubs;
25. The parties shall mutually agree upon a division of the comic books, the contents of the downstairs closet, the contents in the dresser downstairs, and the items in the attic. Anything not agreed to shall be referred to family relations for mediation;
26. The plaintiff is entitled to the jewelry box, the entertainment unit, and complete ownership of all of the remaining furniture, fixtures, appliances and contents of the marital home except for any of defendant's personal clothing still in the home;
CT Page 20261
27. The defendant shall remove all of his property from the marital residence within thirty (30) days of judgment. The plaintiff may regard any property of the defendant not removed after 30 days as abandoned by the defendant and it shall become the property of the plaintiff,
28. The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for the debts that appear on her filed financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless with respect to any claim or liability arising therefrom, or any expense incurred, in connection with such debt;
29. The defendant shall be solely responsible for the debts that appear on his filed financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless with respect to any claim or liability arising therefrom, or any expense incurred in connection with such debt; and
30. Each party shall be responsible for payment of his/her counsel fees.
CT Page 20262