Christy Kobeli v. Sanie Kobeli (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action claiming a dissolution of marriage and other relief.   Plaintiff and defendant, whose maiden name was Sanie Manaj, were married on March 13, 2003 in Hamden, Connecticut.   It was the first marriage for both parties.   Each of the parties lived in Connecticut for at least 12 months before the filing of the complaint.   The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.   No children have been born of this marriage.   Neither the State of Connecticut nor any town or municipality has contributed to the support or maintenance of the parties.

During the course of this five-day trial the parties entered into several stipulations, the first of which was a written agreement that defendant share a one-half interest in plaintiff's pension plan, to be transferred by QDRO as of the date of dissolution.   The parties thereafter agreed that they would each pay their own attorneys fees, that there was no equity in the marital condominium, and that defendant would be entitled to receive the state and federal income tax refunds in the combined amount of $4100.   Plaintiff further represented that he would maintain his $10,000 life insurance policy for the benefit of defendant for so long as he had any obligation to pay alimony to her.

Plaintiff is 56 years old, has a high school education, and is in good health.   After serving in the military he became a meat cutter and is presently employed in that capacity by the Stop and Shop grocery retailer.   He currently earns approximately $21 per hour and generally works six days each week, earning $1,106.42 gross and $808.75 net per week.   This income reflects overtime pay after 40 hours at the rate of “time and a half.”   Plaintiff has been working this schedule for the past several years.

Defendant is 52 years old, has a high school education, and is in generally good health.   She is a citizen of Albania who came into this country illegally, has not been able to obtain United States citizenship and is currently under an order of deportation by the federal government.   As such, she has no source of present income or prospect of employment.   She understands and speaks little of the English language.

Both parties tried to secure defendant's right to remain in this country.   Initially defendant applied for asylum, which was denied after a hearing.   That denial was sustained upon appeal.   Plaintiff, on behalf of defendant, then filed a Petition for Alien Relative.   Although that petition was approved, neither party did anything to further secure defendant's legal status in this country.   She has, however, consulted with an immigration attorney who has agreed to file further applications on her behalf.

Neither party is primarily at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.   The parties knew each other well before their marriage began.   They dated for a year and lived together for 4 to 5 months prior to the marriage.   During this time, plaintiff knew defendant was not legally in this country.   Defendant knew plaintiff drank alcohol regularly.   What they knew about each other when they got married did not change.   What changed was plaintiff's inability to deal with these circumstances and his ultimate belief that the marriage had broken down.   Plaintiff was consistent in his opinion that there was no chance of reconciliation while defendant was willing to continue the relationship.

A great deal of plaintiff's case was directed to defendant's immigration status and the fact that she came into this country illegally.   She admitted to that fact before the immigration courts and to this court.   She was also open and honest about that fact with plaintiff before their marriage.

He accepted her as his wife despite her illegal entry into this country and despite the uncertainty of her status here.   He assisted her and supported her in her efforts to gain citizenship.   For him to now use the fact that she illegally entered this country to further his position in this court is somewhat disingenuous.

On the other hand, plaintiff did support defendant financially during the entire course of the marriage.   Although defendant complained that she wasn't given sufficient personal cash, plaintiff did provide her with housing, food, utilities, medical care and prescriptions and until recently, a cell phone and computer.   She knew when she married him that he was not a wealthy man.   To now complain that she lived under the “power” of plaintiff is also somewhat disingenuous, especially in light of the fact that he supported her financially for the last seven years.   It would appear that plaintiff wishes to use the immigration proceedings to benefit him in this trial, and defendant wishes to use this trial to benefit her future immigration proceedings.

Defendant's status in this country is uncertain.   Attorney James Welcome (stipulated by the parties to testify as an expert in immigration work) indicated his belief that defendant may receive a favorable result if she files further petitions, yet the time has passed for her to further pursue her past applications or appeal her past denials.   In any event, her status is not considered significant in light of the obligations the parties owe to each other as husband and wife and the statutory factors this court must consider in rendering judgment.

The parties purchased a condominium in Waterbury on September 29, 2006 that served as the marital home.   Before that time they lived in a rented apartment.   It was initially defendant's desire to buy property in the Waterbury area so as

to be closer to her family and to build equity in their home.   Although it was a well-intentioned goal, this property is now worth less than when it was purchased, and the balance now due on the mortgage substantially exceeds its fair market value.   Despite that fact, plaintiff wishes to retain the marital residence and is willing to hold defendant harmless from any liability thereon.   If the parties were ordered to sell the property, they would have to come up more than $13,000 just to pay the mortgage, as well as the costs of sale, and neither of the parties has any savings or apparent ability to come up with that amount of money.   Defendant's proposal to have her name restored to the title does not make any sense under these circumstances, especially in light of the fact that she could be deported at any time.

Defendant also wishes to reside in the marital residence, either with or without plaintiff, for a minimum of 18 months from this judgment.   Plaintiff is opposed to that plan, even though he has acknowledged that he will probably have to pay alimony, and it will cost him more to have her live outside of the condominium.   Plaintiff has testified that defendant has twice pulled a knife on him.   Defendant has testified that on several occasions plaintiff has been physically abusive to her by hitting her, throwing her down and kicking her while she was on the floor.   Although there was not sufficient evidence presented for the court to find that either party physically abused the other, it would be unwise to order the parties to live together in light of the allegations of physical abuse each party has made against the other.

Defendant has family living near her, specifically her sister, mother and nephew.   Her mother and sister live together in a three-bedroom home.   Her nephew has an apartment in Queens, NY, where he stays 4 to 5 nights each week.   He spends the rest of the nights at his mother's home.   They are a very close family.   When defendant was first served with notice of this action, she spent 3 to 4 nights each week at her sister's home.

Plaintiff is estranged from most of his family.   His belief that defendant caused this to happen is not supported by the evidence.

Plaintiff has medical coverage through his employment.   The cost to maintain defendant with COBRA coverage is $347 per month.   Defendant is under the care of several doctors and is taking several prescription medications, none of which she could afford without medical insurance.

This court has considered the statutory and practice book provisions, as well as the case law affecting the issues in this case, and has heard and considered 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. STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES

The stipulations of the parties, specifically regarding the division of plaintiff's pension, attorneys fees, tax refunds and life insurance are entered as orders of the court and are hereby incorporated into this judgment.   The court shall retain jurisdiction over the QDRO until approved by the plan administrator.

C. PERIODIC ALIMONY

Plaintiff shall pay periodic alimony to defendant in the amount of $150 per week for a period of two years.   This award shall be modifiable in amount but not as to term.   Alimony shall terminate sooner, however, upon the death of either party, remarriage of defendant or her cohabitation with another person that alters her financial condition, as defined by statute and case law.

D. DEFENDANT'S HEALTH INSURANCE

Plaintiff shall pay the cost of defendant's COBRA medical insurance for a period of two years.   This award is in the nature of alimony and shall be subject to modification as to amount, but not as to term, unless defendant is unable to benefit from this coverage.   Any such modification must be by court order, after proper notice to defendant.

E. LIFE INSURANCE

Plaintiff shall maintain and pay for that certain life insurance policy that he has through his employment in the face amount of $10,000, naming defendant as beneficiary, for so long as he has any alimony obligation to her.

F. REAL PROPERTY

Commencing 60 days from the date of this judgment, plaintiff shall have sole use, occupancy and ownership of the condominium known as 111-3 Taft Pointe, Waterbury, Connecticut.   He shall be solely responsible for the mortgage, taxes, insurance, common charges, utilities and all other expenses of that property, and shall hold defendant harmless from any liability thereon.

Defendant shall vacate that property no later than 60 days from the date of this judgment.

G. MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

1. So long as plaintiff has any financial obligation to defendant, the parties shall exchange their complete state and federal income tax returns by April 15 of each year.   Unless otherwise directed in writing, each party shall send this information to the other's home address by certified mail, return receipt requested, or registered mail.   Each party is ordered to advise the other of a change in their residence and/or mailing address.

2. Defendant is to immediately notify plaintiff if she leaves this country or if her immigration status changes in any regard.

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

RESHA, S.J.

Resha, Robert T., S.J.