Mark Langley v. Oxana Langley (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

A limited contested dissolution hearing was held before the court on April 16, 2010 and continued on April 28, 2010.   Testimony was presented and exhibits were introduced.   The court has considered all of the evidence presented to it and carefully considered the respective criteria for orders of alimony, health insurance, property settlement, division of debt, and award of counsel fees.   The court makes the following findings of facts and orders.

The parties entered into the current marriage on March 8, 2007, in Hebron, Connecticut.   The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the marriage.   All statutory stays have expired.   Both parties have lived in the State of Connecticut for more than one year prior to bringing this action.   There are no minor children born to the parties since the date of the marriage.   The parties have received state assistance.

The parties first met through an online social network service for Jehovah Witnesses in 2003.   The defendant lived with her son from a previous relationship in a modest apartment in Moscow, Russia.   The parties communicated through the internet almost daily.   Later in 2003, the plaintiff flew to Moscow and met the defendant.   The plaintiff stayed in Moscow for one week and then traveled with the defendant to Siberia, where the defendant was originally from.   Upon the plaintiff's return to Connecticut, the parties continued their on-line relationship until 2004 when the parties agreed to marry.   The plan was for the defendant to come to Connecticut and live here.   The defendant, however, would not come to the United States without her son.   The defendant's son was reluctant to move to the United States, therefore, the plans were delayed until the defendant's son agreed to the move.

In order for the defendant to be able to move to the United States the plaintiff signed a U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service Affidavit of Support, Form I-134, (hereinafter “Affidavit of Support”).   In doing so, the plaintiff agreed to provide the plaintiff with whatever support is necessary to maintain the sponsored immigrant, the plaintiff, at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.

On October 19, 2004, the plaintiff and the defendant married for the first time.   The plaintiff, the defendant and her son lived in Hebron, Connecticut.   Both the defendant and her son spoke little English when they moved to Connecticut.   The defendant did not have any friends other than the people she met through church.   The defendant felt very isolated and at times felt depressed.   She would occasionally drink alcohol to excess which made the marriage difficult.   In November 2005, the defendant's son decided to move back to Moscow making the defendant sadder, feeling more alone and increasing the stressors in the marriage.

On October 12, 2006, the plaintiff filed for divorce in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London at Norwich.   Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-45, a writ, summons and complaint for the dissolution of marriage was served upon the defendant.   When the defendant was served, the defendant questioned the plaintiff about the divorce documents.   The plaintiff told the defendant not to worry about them and that she did not have to do anything.   On March 1, 2007, the plaintiff went to court on his own and obtained a dissolution of marriage by default.   The plaintiff went home that night, had dinner with the defendant, they both attended church together and when they returned home at 10:30 p.m., the plaintiff informed the defendant that they were no longer married.   The defendant gathered her belongings and left the home.   On March 8, 2008, seven days later, the plaintiff remarried the defendant by a justice of the peace at their home in Hebron, Connecticut.

The plaintiff has filed three other petitions for the dissolution of the marriage.   The plaintiff withdrew the first two and is now pursuing the current action filed on February 9, 2009.

During the course of the marriage, the plaintiff provided everything to the defendant.   The plaintiff would not let the defendant get her driver's license so she could not leave the house unless driven by the plaintiff or a friend.   The defendant worked sporadically cleaning houses and she was able to do so because the plaintiff drove her to work.   According to the plaintiff, he provided food and shelter to the defendant and therefore, she did not need anything else.   She attended to all his needs.   She felt captive.

In 2008, the defendant sought the help of a friend and obtained a Connecticut drivers' license.   The plaintiff had an automobile he was not using.   The plaintiff fixed it up and allowed the defendant to use it.   When the plaintiff did not want the defendant to leave the house, he would take the air out of the tires.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant was abusive emotionally and physically.   The plaintiff provided evidence of incidents to support the defendant's abusive behavior.   When the defendant consumed alcohol, she would raise her voice towards the plaintiff and become irrational.   The plaintiff, however, would agitate the citation by recording the defendant during these occasions.   The plaintiff claims that he recorded the incidents for his protection.   The plaintiff introduced as evidence one such recording.   The evidence showed an incident of a woman crying and upset because her husband left her alone one Christmas Eve until shortly before midnight.   The recording did not show any signs of physical or emotional abuse.

In February 2009, the plaintiff filed for a restraining order seeking protection from the defendant.   The parties were still living together when on February 28, 2009, the plaintiff called the police and had the defendant arrested for violating a restraining order.   A criminal protective order was then issued.   Currently, there are no restraining or protective orders in effect.

The plaintiff is forty-nine (49) years old and in good health.   He has a high school education and some vocational education in the heating ventilating and air conditioning field (hereinafter “HVAC”).   He has a special “DI” limited sheet metal license through the State of Connecticut.   The defendant is self-employed and runs two types of business.   He is a HVAC contractor and he also installs alarms in laboratories.   The plaintiff claims that the economy has negatively affected his business;  however, he does not have a 2009 tax return or business records to support the claim.   The plaintiff's business computer suffered a software malfunction just prior to the commencement of this proceeding resulting in the loss of his business records for this year.   The plaintiff did introduce a “Profit and Loss Standard for January 1 through November 5, 2009,” ¹ and a “Profit and Loss Prev Year Comparison from January 1, 2010 through April 8, 2010.” ²

The plaintiff does have a personal bank account;  however, he does not use it.   The plaintiff's expenses go through his business.   The only assets the plaintiff has are those of his business.   He does not collect a regular draw from the business.   The plaintiff rents an apartment from which he also runs his business.   The apartment is rented from his father and it is located on his father's property.   The plaintiff is behind on his rent and lists the rent as a liability on his financial affidavit.

The plaintiff's financial affidavit dated April 16, 2010, shows that he has a combined gross weekly income of $420.00 and a net weekly income of $420.00.   The plaintiff does not show any deductions from his pay.   The plaintiff shows a debt to John Leufest in the amount of $7,650.00 and a debt to Richard Langley, his father, in the amount of $6,000.00.   The plaintiff has a 2003 V.W. Jetta approximately valued at $5,000.00 and a 1993 Ford Ranger approximately valued at $2,000.00.   The plaintiff has a Liberty IRA in the amount of $1,430.00.   The plaintiff does not show any personal or business bank accounts in his financial affidavit.   The plaintiff's financial affidavit is less than adequate for the court to make financial orders.   Therefore, the court must look at his earning capacity to fairly and equitably enter financial orders.

According to the plaintiff's “Profit and Loss Standard from January 1 through November 2009,” the plaintiff's business has a gross income of $72,082.00 and a net profit of $43,888.00.

According to the plaintiff's “Profit and Loss Prev Year Comparison from January 1, 2010 through April 8, 2010,” the plaintiff's business has a total income of $19,757.00, a gross profit of $16,818.00 and a net income of $9,032.00.

The plaintiff lists some of his expenses as business deductions and takes full advantage of the federal income tax allowable deductions in his tax returns.   The plaintiff's 2008 federal income tax return “Schedule C,” shows the plaintiff's business had $82,258.00 in gross receipts and $60,323.00 in gross income.   The Plaintiff's 2008 joint federal income tax return shows $21,688.00 of total income and $17,172.00 adjusted gross income.   The plaintiff's 2007 federal income tax return “Schedule C,” shows the plaintiff's business had $104,155.00 in gross receipts and $63,602.00 in gross income.   The plaintiff's 2007 joint federal income tax return shows $33,294.00 of total income and $25,492.00 adjusted gross income.

The plaintiff provided ample testimony of his generosity toward the defendant throughout the marriage.³  The plaintiff took the defendant on a Mexican cruise for their second honeymoon.   The plaintiff took the defendant to Mount Washington.   In August of 2008, the plaintiff paid for the defendant to travel to Russia at a cost of $3,200.00.   In early December 2008, the plaintiff took the defendant on a vacation to the Bahamas.   The plaintiff paid for the defendant's medical care including all the vitamins and herbal supplements the defendant requested.   The plaintiff bought the defendant a car.

Taking into consideration the downturn in the economy, the court finds that the plaintiff's business, from which he runs all his expenses, has an earning capacity of $60,000.00 in gross income.   Moreover, the court finds based on all the evidence presented by the plaintiff that he has the ability to pay support and that the defendant has the need of support.

The defendant is thirty-nine (39) years old and in good health.   She has been prescribed anti-depressants in the past, but stopped taking them because they made her feel bad.   The defendant was born in Siberia but lived in Moscow until she married the plaintiff.   The defendant now lives in Westfield, Massachusetts where she pays limited rent in exchange for providing companionship to an elderly person.   She is currently taking English lessons and has a limited command of the English language.   She works cleaning houses and earns $70.00 per week.   The plaintiff has a 1997 Mazda Millennium automobile with an approximate value of $1,000.00.   She has two checking accounts with a combined total of $228.00.   The defendant does not have any other assets.

The marriage between the parties was volatile since the beginning.   The parties often sought counseling from their church elders.   The plaintiff married a person he barely knew.   He brought her to this country and lived in a rural part of Connecticut.   The plaintiff is controlling and manipulative.   The court does not find the plaintiff credible.

The defendant felt isolated, depressed and alone.   The defendant drank occasionally increasing her feeling and making the marriage more difficult.

The court finds the plaintiff to be at greater fault for the breakdown of the marriage.

ORDERS

After considering all the statutory criteria set forth in Connecticut General Statute sections 46b-62 as to attorneys fees;  46b-81 as to assignment of property and transfer of title;  46b-82, as to the award of alimony;  together with applicable case law, specially, Loughlin v. Loughlin, 280 Conn. 632 (2006), as to the length of the marriage criterion prescribed in Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82 with respect to prior marriages between the same parties;  and the evidence presented here, the court hereby enters the following orders:

Dissolution of Marriage

A decree dissolving the marriage shall enter.

Alimony

The plaintiff shall pay the defendant $175 per week in periodic alimony for a period of five (5) years from date of judgment.   Five years should be sufficient time for the defendant to obtain a greater command of the English language and be able to support herself in the community.   Alimony shall be modifiable.   Alimony shall terminate on the death of the plaintiff or defendant, the defendant's remarriage or cohabitation pursuant to Connecticut statute and case law, or the defendant's permanent return to Russia.⁴

Debt

The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for the debts showing on his financial affidavit dated April 16, 2010, and he shall hold the defendant harmless therefrom.

The plaintiff shall be responsible for $2,000.00 of the defendant's Liberty Bank Visa credit card listed in the defendant's financial affidavit dated April 16, 2010.   The defendant shall be solely responsible for the remaining debts showing on her financial affidavit dated April 16, 2010, and she shall hold the plaintiff harmless therefrom.

Motor Vehicles

The plaintiff shall keep as his sole property the 2003 V.W. Jetta and the 1993 Ford Ranger listed in his financial affidavit.   He shall hold the defendant harmless and indemnified for taxes, registration, and insurance for said vehicles.

The defendant shall keep as her sole property the 1997 Mazda Millennium listed in her financial affidavit.   She shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnified for taxes, registration, and insurance for said vehicle.

The parties shall cooperate with each other to execute any and all necessary documents to facilitate the transfer of said vehicles.

Health Insurance

Each party shall be responsible for their respective health insurance.

Life Insurance

The plaintiff shall maintain a policy of term life insurance in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), naming the defendant beneficiary as long as there is an alimony obligation.

Personal Property

The parties have agreed to divide any and all personal property.

Bank Accounts

The parties shall each retain their own bank accounts.   The plaintiff shall retain the IRA listed on his financial affidavit.

Counsel Fees

Each party shall be responsible for their respective counsel fees.

Suarez, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Exhibit 15..  FN1. Exhibit 15.

FN2. Exhibit 16..  FN2. Exhibit 16.

FN3. The court is surprised at the level of detail the plaintiff was able to provide to support the claim of generosity towards his wife and the lack of detail he was able to provide with respect to his personal and business financial records..  FN3. The court is surprised at the level of detail the plaintiff was able to provide to support the claim of generosity towards his wife and the lack of detail he was able to provide with respect to his personal and business financial records.

FN4. The defendant's proposed orders petitions the court to enforce the Affidavit of Support the plaintiff signed when the defendant came to the United States.   The defendant did not make such a request in her prayer for relief and therefore, the court will not consider the affidavit.   The court's alimony award is established after considering all the factors enumerated in Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b-82..  FN4. The defendant's proposed orders petitions the court to enforce the Affidavit of Support the plaintiff signed when the defendant came to the United States.   The defendant did not make such a request in her prayer for relief and therefore, the court will not consider the affidavit.   The court's alimony award is established after considering all the factors enumerated in Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b-82.

Suarez, José A., J.