Neal S. Ganslaw v. D. Anne Clark-Ganslaw (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This dissolution of marriage action came before the court by writ, summons and complaint, returnable to the court on September 22, 2009.   The defendant filed an answer and cross complaint on September 22, 2009, asserting that she had one child born during the marriage and that the plaintiff is the child's father.   The case was tried to the court on September 24, 2010.   Plaintiff was represented by counsel, while defendant represented herself.

Each party submitted a claim for relief.   The plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendant to assist in amending the parties' 2008 and 2009 federal tax returns so they can file as “married filing jointly.”   The parties' original returns were filed, at the apparent insistence of defendant, as “married, filing separately.”   Plaintiff maintains that the change in filing status will result in a substantial refund which he proposes the parties split evenly.   Plaintiff also seeks an order that the parties alternate claiming the minor child as a tax deduction with plaintiff using the deduction in the even years and defendant in the odd years.   Defendant seeks alimony in a lump sum of $7500.00, child support of $400.00 per week, which deviates from the guideline figure of $221.00 per week, and that plaintiff maintain life insurance in the amount of $250,000.00 until the child reaches the age of 21.

In rendering this decision and making the ensuing orders, the court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82 regarding the assignment of the marital estate and alimony, respectively, § 46b-84 as to support and medical insurance for the parties' minor child, the case law as it has developed regarding these matters, and other relevant federal and state laws regarding the issues before the court.   The court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the parties and the witnesses at the time of trial.   There were numerous full exhibits, each of which was examined by the court.

The court makes the following findings:

1) The plaintiff resided in the state of Connecticut for more than one year prior to the commencement of the action and the court has jurisdiction.

2) One child has been born to the wife since the date of the marriage and plaintiff is the child's father.

3) The family has never received public assistance.

4) The court finds that the allegations of the complaint are proven in truth.   The marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably.   There is no hope for reconciliation of the parties to their marriage.

5) To the parties' great credit, they have reached an agreement dated May 17, 2010 resolving all issues related to the minor child, which the court incorporates into this order.

The parties began their relationship in 2007 when they met when both were teaching evening computer classes for Middletown Adult Education.   They were married in Stonington, Connecticut on March 29, 2008.   After the marriage, plaintiff moved into defendant's home and paid the mortgage, sometimes sporadically, during the time he lived there.   Their daughter Lailah was born on October 1, 2008.   The parties resided together for a little less than a year, with plaintiff moving out of the home in March 2009.   Upon leaving the marital residence, plaintiff filed a prior dissolution action that was subsequently withdrawn, as the parties made a short-lived attempt at reconciliation.   Their relationship was extremely tempestuous, resulting in physical altercations on a handful of occasions, although neither party ever struck the other.   The altercations were a symptom, rather than a cause, of the deterioration of the marriage.

Both parties work in the computer field.   Plaintiff is employed as a Senior Software Engineer for Ledge Light Technologies in New London where he earns a net weekly wage of $1,205.36.   Defendant owns her own web design business, which she operates out of her home, and earns a net weekly wage of $177.77.   She indicated that she had curtailed her business activities during the marriage in order to care for the parties' child, together with her other children.   In addition to child support, plaintiff paid defendant $100.00 per week during the pendency of this dissolution action.

There are essentially no marital assets.   Defendant owned the marital home, which defendant estimates has approximately $40,000.00 in equity, prior to the marriage and continues to do so.   The parties each own their own vehicle.   Neither party has significant resources in their checking nor savings accounts and both parties carry significant consumer debt.   Plaintiff owes $14,094.34 to the Internal Revenue Service;  together with $5,746.84 in assorted other debt.   He also claims he has borrowed $32,000.00 from his parents to assist him in transitioning out of the marriage.   Defendant owes $44,350.00 in credit card, student loan, and medical debt.

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing, the court orders the following:

1.  A decree dissolving the marriage, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, shall enter.

2. Defendant shall continue as sole owner of the martial home and hold plaintiff harmless from any liability attendant thereto.

3. Defendant shall receive alimony, non-modifiable as to amount or term and terminable upon the death of either party, in the amount of $100.00 per week for a term of one (1) year from the date of this order.

4. Plaintiff shall pay defendant child support in the amount of $221.00 per week in accordance with the guidelines.

5. Each party shall be responsible for his or her own medical insurance.   Plaintiff shall maintain medical insurance for the minor child until his child support obligation ceases.   The parties shall divide all reasonable and necessary unreimbursed medical expenses in accordance with the child support guidelines.

6. The parties shall each pay their own liabilities unless otherwise provided in these orders.

7. The court finds that plaintiff is insurable based on the testimony that he was insured, but had let the policy lapse.   Plaintiff shall procure a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000.00 listing the minor child as beneficiary and the defendant as trustee.   This obligation shall cease upon the minor child reaching eighteen (18) years of age.

8. Each party shall be the sole owner of their respective home furnishings, personal effects and jewelry, presently in their physical custody.

9. Each party shall sign whatever documents are necessary, and are presented to them by the other party, to effectuate these orders.

10. Plaintiff shall pay his own attorneys fees.

11. Defendant shall take the minor child as a tax deduction during the odd numbered years and plaintiff shall take the child as a deduction during the even numbered years.

12. The court declines to order either party to reimburse the other for claimed expenses.

13. The court declines to order defendant to amend her 2008 and 2009 federal tax returns, although she is free to do so voluntarily.

14. The court is not retaining jurisdiction over the minor child's post-secondary education.

James W. Abrams, Judge

Abrams, James W., F.S.M.