Maria R. Lucarz v. Dariusz J. Lucarz (2010)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This dissolution action was filed by the plaintiff on July 8, 2009, and was tried to the court on March 25, 2010.   The court issued a memorandum of decision on April 8, 2010, and on April 22, 2010, the defendant filed a motion to reargue, which was granted by the court on July 27, 2010.   After reviewing the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties in this case on September 24, 2010, the court issues the following modifications to the judgment.

1. Real Property

The parties jointly own real property located at 875 Marshal Phelps Road in Windsor.   The court found the reasonable value of this property to be $480,000 and equitably divided it by assigning 55% of the value of this property to the plaintiff.   The defendant continues to assert, inter alia, that he is entitled to a credit of $50,000 for the plaintiff's additional equity in their respective homes.   The court disagrees with the defendant in light of the plaintiff's more limited ability to accumulate assets and income.   However, the court did not consider in its calculus of the equitable division of the marital assets that the plaintiff was awarded the Sun Life insurance policy on the defendant's life, valued at $110,501 at the time of the dissolution.   Consistent with the court's division of marital assets, the court credits the defendant with 45% of this asset, which coincidentally equals $50,000.¹  Based upon a value of $480,000, the defendant was previously ordered to “pay to the plaintiff $264,000 within 120 days, whereupon the plaintiff shall convey all of her right, title and interest in this real property to the defendant.”   Based upon the credit found for the defendant, this amount is hereby reduced by $50,000 to $214,000.

The defendant further argues that, pursuant to the court's judgment, he would be required to pay approximately $35,000 per year on a commercial mortgage in order to pay the original order of $264,000 within 120 days.   At the time of the trial in this case, no evidence was produced on the question of the mortgage payments necessary to effectuate this court order.   The court finds the figure of $35,000, as proffered by the defendant, to be based upon reasonable assumptions, therefore making the division of income between the parties in this case inequitable at the time of the dissolution.   The court therefore orders the defendant to pay the plaintiff $214,000 within 120 days, whereupon the plaintiff shall quitclaim all of her right, title and interest in this real property to the defendant.   If this payment is not made within 120 days, the defendant shall, in the alternative, provide a note in this amount secured by a mortgage on the real property, in exchange for the quitclaim deed.   The mortgage note shall accrue interest at the rate of 2.5% and shall be payable upon the sale or transfer of this property, but for a term of no longer than ten years.²

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Taylor, M., Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court notes that 45% of $110,501 is $49,725.   The court further notes that the business equipment was not previously divided in the judgment under the same formula of 55% for the plaintiff and 45% for the defendant, as was the case for other marital assets.   Instead, the plaintiff received only 25% of the value of the business equipment over ten years without interest, in recognition of the defendant's need for this equipment to generate income for the business and for the payment of alimony.   Although the same may be true for the real property, the title to this property is jointly held and, furthermore, this order need not be effectuated for ten years..  FN1. The court notes that 45% of $110,501 is $49,725.   The court further notes that the business equipment was not previously divided in the judgment under the same formula of 55% for the plaintiff and 45% for the defendant, as was the case for other marital assets.   Instead, the plaintiff received only 25% of the value of the business equipment over ten years without interest, in recognition of the defendant's need for this equipment to generate income for the business and for the payment of alimony.   Although the same may be true for the real property, the title to this property is jointly held and, furthermore, this order need not be effectuated for ten years.

FN2. In determining the interest rate, the court considered the September 24, 2010 Treasury Bond rate of 2.62% for a ten-year period..  FN2. In determining the interest rate, the court considered the September 24, 2010 Treasury Bond rate of 2.62% for a ten-year period.

Taylor, Mark H., J.