IV v. Margo A. von Rosenvinge (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for dissolution of marriage and other relief brought to the judicial district of Danbury.   Many of the facts that give rise to this action are not in dispute.   The plaintiff and the defendant, whose birth name was Margo A. Korbobo, were married on June 7, 1986, at Winchester, Massachusetts.   The plaintiff has resided continuously in the state of Connecticut for at least twelve months immediately prior to the date that the complaint was filed.   The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably without any reasonable prospects of reconciliation.   There are two adult children issue of this marriage:  Laurel B. von Rosenvinge, born December 10, 1987, and Robin A. von Rosenvinge, born March 5, 1991, neither of whom has yet attained the age of 23 years.

Laurel is presently enrolled in college and is expected to graduate in 2011.   The plaintiff assists her financially by paying many of her living expenses.   Robin is on a leave of absence from college and plans to return to school in the spring of 2011.   Likewise, the plaintiff assists Robin financially and gives her money for many of her living expenses.   The parties have been in disagreement over the level of support which they should give to the children.

Neither party has received public assistance for their maintenance or support from the State of Connecticut or the town in which they live.

This matter was tried to the court on August 31, September 1, and September 2, 2010.   Each of the parties testified, and there were seventy-four (74) full exhibits for the court to consider.

The plaintiff is 58 years old and in good health.   He holds both a bachelor's and a master's degree in civil engineering, as well as an M.B.A. in finance.   He has an adult daughter from a prior marriage who resides in England.   He is currently employed as a professional engineer.   The plaintiff is also an avid musician who writes, produces and performs his music, but this endeavor generates little to no income.   He is also a tennis player and has been an avid sailor since childhood.

The court finds that the plaintiff has extensive sailing experience and spends significant leisure time sailing and racing.   Prior to the breakdown of the marriage, the parties engaged in these activities together as a couple.   However, this recreation is now engaged in exclusively by the plaintiff which he enjoys on Wednesday nights and on weekends at an average cost of $281 per week.   Said cost is listed on Schedule D of the plaintiff's financial affidavit dated August 31, 2010.   The parties' sailboat, which now is exclusively used by the plaintiff, was purchased in 2002 for $130,000.   The court finds that its current value is $79,000.   The parties also own a second sailboat with a value of $2,800.

The plaintiff started the firm of GeoDesign, Inc. in 1995, a geotechnical engineering and environmental services firm.   He currently owns 28.39 percent of the company, and is one of approximately a dozen stockholders.   He is also one of the six members of the board of directors.   The company's stock is valued on an annual basis and there is a Buy/Sell Agreement in force;  the stock is currently valued at $5,500 per share.

Due to the economy, GeoDesign, Inc. is having cash flow issues;  their clients are not paying promptly and their work amount is in the decline.   The firm laid off seven employees in 2010 and its line of credit is close to its limit.   While the plaintiff has enjoyed bonuses traditionally, he has received none in 2010 and none are anticipated during the remainder of the year.   The plaintiff has, until recently, enjoyed capital gains distributions of $2,400 per month;  they have ceased.   This year, his capital gains distributions total between $12,000-$15,000, but in prior years have been $30,000 annually.   He earns an annual salary of approximately $171,000 and his 28.39 percent interest in the firm is valued at approximately $482,630.   The firm provides the plaintiff with a vehicle.

The plaintiff sold $55,000 worth of his company stock in 2009 and used it to pay debt or for home improvement projects.   He presently owes his firm $26,000 for repayment of bonus advances and loans.   He has also borrowed approximately $15,000 from his Fidelity retirement account in 2010.   He received a final distribution in the amount of $45,000 in 2010 from his family's Worcester Trust which he used to pay debt obligations.   No further distributions will occur from this trust.

The defendant is 58 years old and in relatively good health but has some issues with osteoporosis.   She is presently employed as a registered nurse and stopped working after the oldest child was born and became a traditional stay-at-home mother.   After the children got older, the plaintiff also assumed many of the domestic roles as well.   In 2006 or so, the defendant reentered the workforce as a registered nurse.   She is employed at Ridgefield Crossing, an assisted living facility, and works three to four days per week, approximately 30 hours, at the rate of $29 per hour.   She earns approximately $41,800 annually.

The plaintiff spoke with an attorney regarding the divorce in early 2006, and the defendant, at first, did not want it.   The parties remained together until the plaintiff moved out of the marital home in 2009 soon after the younger child graduated from high school.   The parties moved to Ridgefield in 1992.   The marital home is valued at $710,000.   Since the parties separated, the plaintiff has paid the real estate taxes, mortgage, electricity, gas, water, telephone, trash, cable, auto insurance, homeowner's insurance and the home equity loan payments on the marital home.   The defendant has paid for heating oil, food and her transportation.

The parties have amicably divided certain items of their personal property to their mutual satisfaction.

The court finds that neither party is found to be more responsible than the other for the breakdown of the twenty-four-year marriage.   The parties engaged in counseling, unsuccessfully, for years prior to the breakup in an attempt to keep their marriage together.   Over the years they grew apart, communicated poorly, and no longer enjoyed sharing common interests.   The parties have opposing views of the extent to which they should support their children, the defendant wishing for their daughters to be less financially dependent on their parents and the plaintiff acquiescing to the daughters' requests for financial support.   The plaintiff made the majority of financial decisions and the parties rarely discussed the handling of family finances.   This arrangement worked well until the marriage began breaking down.   Each of the parties made use of the joint checking account and they lived a comfortable lifestyle.

Both of the parties were active and good citizens who contributed positively to their community.   There is no question that both worked hard throughout their marriage;  that the plaintiff was a good provider;  and that the defendant was a hardworking and successful traditional stay-at-home mother.

The plaintiff's mother, age 79, is currently a beneficiary of the McGhee Trust, established in 1974, to assist her during her lifetime with living expenses.   When she passes away, the plaintiff and each of his three siblings will receive the remaining corpus of the trust which is presently valued at approximately $463,000.

The court finds the plaintiff's liabilities to be $147,972.20.   He has two life insurance policies with face amounts totaling $1,500,000;  they have no cash value, however.   The court further finds that the plaintiff owns bank accounts of approximately $2,000.   The marital home is valued at $710,000, less a mortgage of $388,304.93, and a HELOC in the amount of $59,991.47, for a net equity of $261,703.60.   The plaintiff's deferred assets, consisting of an IRA, Roth IRA, Keough, and Fidelity Rollover, total $370,444.00.   Additionally, the plaintiff's 401(k) has a net value of $233,375.00.

The defendant has liabilities of $10,837.00 plus attorneys fees.   Her bank accounts total $3,819.21 and the value of her deferred compensation plans is $14,321.50.

The court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81(c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorneys fees, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-56(c) regarding the issue of educational support orders.

The court enters the following orders:

ORDERS

A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION

1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared to be single and unmarried.

B. BY WAY OF PROPERTY DIVISION

1. Real Property

The real property shall be listed for sale and sold immediately, and the defendant shall receive the net proceeds.   The defendant shall have exclusive possession of the home until sale and the expenses of the mortgage, home equity line of credit, real property taxes and homeowner's insurance shall be paid by the plaintiff until sale.   The court shall retain jurisdiction over any dispute pertaining to the sale.

2. Bank Accounts

Each party shall retain his/her bank accounts.

3. Automobiles

Each party shall retain his/her automobile.

4. Sailboats

The plaintiff shall retain the Beneteau sailboat, and the defendant shall retain the Laser sailboat.

5. Personal Property

The parties' agreement over the division of their personal property is found to be fair and equitable and the court adopts it.

6. Deferred assets

a. The plaintiff's deferred assets shall be divided 30 percent to the plaintiff and 70 percent to the defendant, less any loans due thereon, forthwith, by way of tax-free rollovers and QDROs where necessary, with gains and losses carrying on the average of all un-transferred accounts until all transfers are completed.   The parties shall share equally the cost of the QDROs which is incurred in drafting any orders necessary to accomplish the division.   The court shall retain jurisdiction over the division of the accounts until completed.

b. The defendant shall retain her deferred assets.

7. Debt

a. The plaintiff shall assume the debts as shown on his financial affidavit and indemnify and hold harmless the defendant on account thereof.

b. The defendant shall assume the debts as shown on her financial affidavit and indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless on account thereof.

8. Business Interests

The plaintiff shall maintain his interest in GeoDesign, Inc. free and clear of any claims of the defendant.   He shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless of any liability arising out of his business interests.

C. BY WAY OF ATTORNEYS FEES

1. Each party shall be responsible for his/her own attorneys fees.

D. BY WAY OF ALIMONY

1. The plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant alimony in the sum of $1,300 per week.   Alimony is to terminate upon the earliest of the following events:  (a) the death of the plaintiff;  (b) the death of the defendant;  (c) the remarriage of the defendant.   A contingent wage withholding order shall enter.   In determining alimony, the court based it upon the net earnings of the parties.

2. The provisions of § 46b-86(a) and § 46b-86(b) are applicable.

3. In the event the plaintiff or the defendant retires on or after his/her sixty-fifth birthday, such a retirement is not to be considered a voluntary reduction of earnings.

4. The plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant 25 percent of the gross of any future bonuses and capital gains distributions within thirty (30) days of receipt.

E. LIFE INSURANCE

The plaintiff shall maintain life insurance, insuring his life, in the amount of $500,000, naming the defendant as sole beneficiary so long as he has an obligation to pay alimony.   This is intended to be in the nature of a non-modifiable property order.   Commencing one year from the date this decision is filed and annually thereafter, the plaintiff is to provide the defendant with evidence that he is insured in the specified amount and that she is the beneficiary.

F. McGHEE TRUST

1. Any residual benefit to the plaintiff from the McGhee Trust shall be his property free and clear of any claims of the defendant.

G. MEDICAL INSURANCE

1. Each party shall assume and pay for his/her own medical insurance and unreimbursed medical expenses.

H. MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

1. The parties are to exchange copies of their federal and state income tax returns within thirty (30) days after such returns have been filed for so long as there is an outstanding alimony order or any arrearage thereto.

2. The plaintiff and defendant have previously filed joint federal and state income tax returns.   Each party shall be equally liable for any deficiency assessment, penalties or interest with respect to joint tax returns filed except as to adjustments caused by the non-inclusion of income or the improper inclusion of claimed deductions in which case the party so responsible shall be solely liable.

3. An educational support order shall enter requiring the plaintiff to pay for the education of Laurel and Robin within the parameters of the educational support statute.   The court finds that the parties would more likely than not have provided support for the children's higher education if the family had remained intact.

4. The plaintiff shall utilize the 529 Educational Accounts for the education of the children before personally funding educational expenses for the children.

Marano, J.

Marano, Richard M., J.