Cheryl Vaichus v. Vincent Vaichus (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for dissolution of marriage and other relief brought to the Waterbury Judicial District.   Plaintiff, whose maiden name was Cheryl Jamieson, and defendant were married on June 6, 1992 in Watertown, Connecticut.   Plaintiff has resided continuously in this state for at least 12 months prior to the date the complaint was filed.   The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably without any reasonable prospect of reconciliation.   There are seven children of this marriage, ranging in age from four to sixteen.   Neither party has been the recipient of public assistance from the State of Connecticut or any town or municipality of the State.

Plaintiff is 39 years old and has a high school education.   She has been diagnosed with Huntington's Disease, which is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by psychiatric changes, cognitive deficits and involuntary movements.   Plaintiff suffers from all of these symptoms and is permanently and totally disabled.

Defendant is 41 years old and has completed some level of college education.   He is currently self-employed as a contractor/carpenter, and reports net income of $700 per week.   Defendant started his own business after he was laid off, for the second time, from his full-time employment at Pratt and Whitney in 2004, where he had been earning approximately $60,000 per year.   Although earnings from this business were quite meager when it was started, and the family spent substantial savings in order to meet expenses, the business has yielded greater income as the years progressed.

The history of the marriage is notable.   By agreement, plaintiff was a stay-at-home mom who devoted herself to her family and was the primary caretaker for the children.   She home-schooled the children and provided for most of their daily needs.   Defendant was the primary source of financial support for the family.   Defendant's extreme religious beliefs are a cause of concern to plaintiff, especially as they pertain to the children.   Both parties love their children and are doing what they believe is in their best interests, but defendant is controlling and does not allow the children to be exposed to anything not strictly within his beliefs and views.   In the past, plaintiff's concerns were tempered somewhat by her primary role in raising the children.   Her declining health, however, has caused her to realize that she can no longer be the primary caretaker for the children.   In fact, the parties entered into a written agreement specifying the entire parenting plan on October 13, 2009 wherein it was agreed that defendant would be the primary physical custodian of the children.

The parties still reside together, in a house they rent from defendant's mother.   Since plaintiff has no independent assets or source of income, the parties both acknowledge and agree that she must remain there for some period of time.   There is much uncertainty in their future as to when plaintiff will be able to vacate the marital residence, and what the condition of her health and her financial needs will be at that time.

At the commencement of trial, the parties identified the issues in dispute as child support, alimony, division of assets, division of debts, length of time plaintiff would be allowed to remain in the marital residence, and whether defendant should be required to seek full-time employment.

The only asset in dispute is a jointly owned parcel of undeveloped real estate in Watertown, Connecticut, which was gifted to the parties in 1993 by defendant's mother.   This property is unencumbered and has a fair market value of $110,000.   Plaintiff wishes to have this property sold, and the proceeds divided equally after payment of the joint debts.   Defendant wishes to have the property awarded to him, but has produced no evidence that he equitably should be awarded plaintiff's interest in the property, nor has he indicated his desire, willingness or ability to keep this property and pay plaintiff her equity interest.

The family needs financial relief at this time.   The house they are living in is in need of repair.   There are unpaid creditors, some of whom have started collection proceedings.   Plaintiff has no independent source of income, yet has agreed to vacate the marital residence at some time in the future.   Defendant has expressed his desire that she do so as soon as possible.   It is plaintiff's wish to live independently, and that will require her to have some money when she leaves the marital home.   There are virtually no savings.   Defendant's income is barely sufficient to meet the immediate and ongoing needs of a large family and his future obligations to plaintiff.

The parties have joint debts of approximately $30,000, several of which are already in collection.   Most of these debts were accumulated while defendant was starting his own business.   Both parties have agreed to share these debts equally, but only plaintiff has a realistic proposal for the satisfaction of these obligations.   As a practical matter, if these debts are not satisfied, the creditors will likely attach the only asset of the parties, the jointly owned real estate, and that property will eventually be foreclosed upon.

It is difficult to imagine the stress on this family, both emotionally and financially.   The parties and their children are dealing with the issues of plaintiff's declining health and the reduced involvement she will have with her children;  the limited earning capacity of defendant in light of the job market, his limited skills, and the fact that he has been out of the job market for five years;  and the fact that he must now be responsible as the primary physical custodian of seven children.   This stress is exacerbated by plaintiff's disagreement with the beliefs and views of defendant (although there was no evidence that he had not held these beliefs and views during the entire marriage), and defendant's failure to adjust his beliefs and views to the circumstances now facing his family.   These circumstances were of sufficient concern to cause the court (Bozzuto, J.) to issue an extraordinary order on the eve of trial (November 2, 2009) providing that “the Guardian Ad Litem for the minor children shall be allowed to monitor the parties' compliance with the October 13, 2009 parenting plan, pendente lite and post judgment.   The GAL may file motions, as she deems appropriate, relative to the parenting plan.”   This court concurs with the appropriateness and necessity of this order under the specific circumstances of this case.

By written agreement and court order on March 23, 2009, the parties were to have the property appraised.   That appraisal was accomplished, but paid for by plaintiff's mother at a cost of $375.   She is willing to assume $250 of that cost on behalf of her daughter, but wishes the court to order defendant to pay the balance of $125 to her.   Her statement that defendant has agreed to pay that amount to her is credible and is not denied by him.

This Court has considered all statutory provisions and case law affecting the issues in this case as well as the testimony and evidence presented by the parties.   The Court enters the following orders:

A. DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

The marriage of the parties is hereby dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown and each party is declared to be single and unmarried.

B. WRITTEN STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

The written stipulation and parenting plan dated October 13, 2009 was reviewed by the court, found to be in the best interests of the minor children, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties is incorporated into this judgment.

C. POSTJUDGMENT INVOLVEMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The order of the court (Bozzuto, J.) directing that the Guardian Ad Litem for the minor children shall be allowed to monitor the parties' compliance with the October 13, 2009 parenting plan, pendente lite and postjudgment is incorporated herein.

D. REAL ESTATE

The parties shall, within two weeks of this judgment, list the property at 22E Sunnyside Avenue, Watertown, Connecticut for sale with a recognized realtor in the Watertown area, at an asking price of not less than $110,000, unless both parties agree to a different price in writing, and shall do all things reasonable and necessary to sell said property in a bona fide arms length transaction.   Each of the parties shall act in good faith to sell this property and shall accept any reasonable offer to purchase.   All joint debts of the parties as of December 2, 2009, as shown and described on defendant's financial affidavit, shall be paid from the proceeds of said sale, and the net proceeds shall thereafter be equally divided between the parties.   The court hereby retains jurisdiction over the sale of this property in the event further orders are necessary to effectuate these provisions.

E. LENGTH OF TIME PLAINTIFF MAY REMAIN IN THE MARITAL HOME

Plaintiff shall vacate the marital home within 30 days after the distribution of the net proceeds of the real property, but if that sale has not occurred within 90 days of this judgment, either party may petition the court for a modification of this order.   Any modification will depend upon the circumstances then existing, and the issue of a modification of the alimony order may be addressed at the same time.   So long as plaintiff resides in this home, defendant shall provide separate sleeping quarters for her and shall not make any unwanted physical or sexual advances toward her, nor shall he threaten, harass, assault, molest or sexually assault her.   The court specifically reserves jurisdiction over these issues.

F. ALIMONY

For so long as plaintiff resides in the marital home defendant shall provide her with shelter, heat, and food.   He shall also pay $50 per week to her in periodic alimony for her personal needs.   Either party may petition the court for modification of this order if defendant is not in compliance with this order, or once plaintiff vacates the marital residence without either party having to prove any further substantial change in circumstances.   Alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the remarriage of plaintiff or her cohabitation in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes and case law, but in no event later than 14 years from the date of this judgment.

G. CHILD SUPPORT

No orders of child support are entered at this time, however plaintiff is ordered to immediately apply for any benefits that she or her children may be entitled to, and shall give evidence to defendant of her applications and responses.   Plaintiff shall seek the assistance of people or agencies that are knowledgeable and can advise her of her rights in this regard.

H. EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the court does hereby retain jurisdiction to enter educational support orders in the future.

I. PAYMENT OF APPRAISAL FEE

Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of $125 to plaintiff's mother, Mrs. Audrey Sperring, no later than 60 days from the date of this judgment.

J. MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

1. Defendant shall cooperate in providing all necessary information he possesses regarding plaintiff's finances and otherwise shall assist her in her efforts to secure living accommodations.

2. So long as either party has a financial obligation to the other, each party shall notify the other if there is a change in their employment, income or financial benefits.   In addition, both parties shall exchange their complete state and federal income tax returns by April 15 of each year so long as there is any financial obligation one to the other.   Unless otherwise directed in writing the parties shall send this information to the other's home address by certified mail, return receipt requested.   Each party shall notify the other if there is a change in their residence address.

3. Counsel for plaintiff is to prepare the judgment file within 30 days and send it to defendant for his signature.   Defendant is ordered to sign the judgment file and return same to court within 15 days of his receipt of same.

RESHA, SJ

Resha, Robert T., S.J.