Timothy J. King v. Suzanne M. King (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

1. Factual Findings:

The parties intermarried on May 30, 1990 in Coventry, Connecticut.   The plaintiff has resided in Connecticut for longer than twelve months next preceding the commencement of this action.   The marriage has broken down irretrievably without any reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

There were two children issue of the marriage, namely:

Joseph Clement King, date of birth March 20, 1993 (age 17).

Jessica Jeanne King, date of birth April 17, 1991 (age 19).

Neither party has received financial assistance for themselves or said children from any state or local agency.

2. Applicable Statutes:

In fashioning orders of assignment of property the Court shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the breakdown, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of assets and income.

The Court shall consider the contribution of each party in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their respective estates.   See Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-81.   Similar considerations apply in the determination of an alimony award.   See Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-82.

3. Discussion:

Much of the trial testimony focused on the parties' claims as to fault for the breakdown of the marriage.   The husband was suspicious of the wife's increasing absences from home on evenings and weekends.   He found a provocative image of her on her computer, lying scantily clad on a bed next to another female.   The wife explained it was a Halloween gag with a friend and nothing more.   She also claims he watched computer pornography, but that the principal cause for the breakdown was his frightening temper.   She described incidents of road rage, airport rage, threats against her life, and a family violence arrest in 2009 where counseling was required.   Suffice to say that there was fault on both sides, the husband's angry tirades lead the Court to conclude the husband was more at fault for the breakdown.   The threats were real and put the wife in fear for her safety.   While her behavior was less than commendable, there was no proof of adultery on her part, as he alleged.

This is the second marriage for both parties.   At the time the husband was, and remains, a union iron worker.   He works almost exclusively on bridges.

The wife worked at the Hartford Insurance Company, but left that employment when their daughter was born.   She had moved into the Coventry home which the husband owned, and started a licensed day care facility there after their daughter was born.

While she brought few material assets to the marriage, in the course of this twenty-year union, she raised their two children and contributed financially through her day care.

In addition to the Coventry home, the husband owned a four-unit apartment building in East Hartford with an equity of approximately $37,000.   He also owned a two-family apartment building in Willimantic, with a pre-martial equity of about $6,000.

The husband earns $33 per hour as an iron worker.   His pension has a present value of $216,484, all attributable to post-marriage.

Additional facts will be discussed as needed to clarify the orders.

4. Orders:

Dissolution:

Judgment shall enter dissolving the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

Custody/Access:

The parties shall have joint legal custody of the minor child Joseph.   In light of his age (17) and the fact the he is able to move freely between residences, a specific parenting access schedule is unnecessary.   Both parties shall facilitate an ongoing parental relationship with each other.

Child Support:

Child support is not ordered because of the shared parenting arraignment.   Deviation from the support guidelines is approved (reference to guidelines support worksheet dated 10/12/10).

Children's Medical:

The husband shall maintain medical insurance for Joseph and Jessica (age 19) as long as each child is eligible for such insurance through the husband's employment insurance plan.   The parties shall be equally responsible for the children's unreimbursed medical expenses.

College Expenses:

The parties shall share equally in one-half of the costs of college for Jessica and Joseph.   The remaining one-half of college costs shall be paid by the child.

Alimony:

The husband shall pay periodic weekly alimony of $250 for thirteen years.   This is a twenty-four-year marriage.   The wife is 49 years old and will reach age 62 in about 13 years.   The husband is 54 years old and has a substantially better earning capacity.   The wife's primary source of income is from her day care business, which she will lose.   She cannot afford to keep the Coventry residence and the Willimantic property is not suitable for a day care business.

The alimony order would end sooner on the death of either party or statutory cohabitation by the defendant and is modifiable as to term and amount.

The husband shall name the wife as the beneficiary of his $40,000 life insurance policy to secure his alimony obligation.

Marital Residence:

The wife shall transfer her interest in the marital home at 130 Geraldine Drive to the husband and he shall be responsible for all expenses pertaining to the residence and shall hold the wife harmless therefrom.

Willimantic Rental Property:

The wife shall have sole ownership of the Willimantic property at 46 Park Street, Willimantic and the husband shall transfer his interest therein to the wife.   He shall transfer all security deposits, together with accrual statutory interest.   The wife shall be responsible for all costs associated with this property and hold the husband harmless therefrom.

East Hartford Rental Property:

The husband shall have sole ownership of this property on Caron Road and the wife shall transfer her interest therein to him.   The husband shall be responsible for all costs associated with said property and hold the wife harmless therefrom.

Motor Vehicles, Camper, and Boat. The wife shall retain the 2004 Jeep Liberty.   The husband shall keep the 2005 Dodge pick-up-truck, the 1986 Mercury Cougar, the 1994 Gulfstream camper and the 1974 Barracuda, a box trailer, a 1990 Chevrolet Corvette and a Kawasaki dirt bike.   The husband shall also keep the Bayline boat.

Pensions:

The wife shall receive 50% of the husband's Prudential 401K and 50% of the husband's Ironworkers Local 15 and 424 pension.   The parties shall share equally the cost of a third-party preparation of QDROs as needed to accomplish this order.

Bank Accounts:

Each party shall retain the bank accounts shown on their respective financial affidavits.

Wife's Medical:

The husband shall cooperate in making COBRA coverage available to the wife.   The estimated cost is $550 per month.   The husband shall pay one-half of the cost of coverage for a period of one year.   Thereafter COBRA coverage shall be the wife's responsibility.

Tax Deductions:

The parties shall each take one child as a dependancy deduction for the tax year.   When there is only one eligible child, they shall take alternate years, beginning with the wife.

Other Observations or Considerations:

The Court finds the husband's testimony as to income and property valuations to be skewed and less than candid.   The evidence was that he earns $33 per hour as a bridge worker.   He goes out on jobs when needed but there are consistently times when he is not working in his primary job.   He has earned money as a handy-man in addition to his union work.   He advertizes as a handy-man in the yellow pages and the Reminder newspaper and has never declared any income from that business.   In 2009, he deposited more than $98,000 into his checking account.

He did own the marital home at the time of his marriage, with equity of about $24,500.   With respect to the East Hartford property, in 1987, his financial affidavit (when his prior marriage ended) listed the value as $170,000, with his equity being about $37,000.   His appraiser at this trial testified that today's fair market value is $144,000, but his comparable sales were not persuasive.   The Court finds the defendant's appraiser's fair market value of $175,000 is closer to the mark.

The value of the marital assets that each party is retaining as a result of these orders is as follows:

A-Plaintiff Husband:

1.  Marital home (Coventry):  Fair Market Value-$340,000;  mortgage-$214,000.   The husband refinanced the property while the case was pending reducing the equity from $253,000 to $127,000.   The wife received about $22,000 from the refinance and the husband about $15,000, however he obtained a reduced interest rate of five percent.  (The wife pays interest of seven and a quarter percent on the Willimantic property.   There is approximately $11,000 being held in escrow which shall be turned over to the wife in partial adjustment to the husband's erosion of the equity in said property.

2. East Hartford property:  FMV $170,000, subject to a mortgage of $89,000 and a $9,000 equity line of credit-his net equity is about $72,000.

3. Willimantic property:  The net equity is about $72,000.  (After deducting $12,000 for a replacement roof.)   The wife will retain this property.

Attorneys Fees:

The husband shall pay $5,000 toward the wife' attorneys fees within sixty days of judgment.

Other:  Defendant's Motion for Contempt (Nos. 126 and 128)

No. 126-The defendant alleges the plaintiff violated the Automatic Orders when he refinanced the Coventry property and increased the mortgage debt by about $140,000.   Initially the wife had no objection to the concept of refinancing the marital home, but as the process went on, wife's counsel objected to the payment of eight points in order to get a more favorable interest rate.   The evidence was a bit murky as to why the husband proceeded with the refinance, but it was done and the wife did benefit from a portion of the $37,000 which the husband received.   In part more money went to the parties' son for income taxes, the payoff of a car loan and bills.   The Court declines to find the plaintiff in contempt.

No. 128-The defendant alleges the plaintiff has failed to pay mortgage payments on a timely basis.   There was little, if any, evidence of this claim and it was not raised in post-trial briefs.   This motion is denied.

Klaczak, J.T.R.

Klaczak, Lawrence C., J.T.R.