Sarah M. DeLauro v. Michael DeLauro (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Plaintiff brought this dissolution of marriage action before the court by writ, summons and complaint, returnable to the court on May 25, 2010, asserting that she had one child born during the marriage and that the defendant is the child's father.   The defendant filed an answer on June 1, 2010.   On December 9, 2010, a trial was held before the court at which the parties represented themselves.

The plaintiff seeks the following orders over the defendant's objection:  1) That the child's name be changed from Alexandra DeLauro to Alexandra McEleney-DeLauro as the mother is asking the court to restore her maiden name based on her argument that the child's primary residence will be with mother in the community where mother grew up and her family is well-known and that this will benefit the child;  2) That the court retain jurisdiction over the child's post-secondary education costs;  3) That the court award plaintiff alimony;  and 4) That the court award plaintiff a portion of the $4,170.97 which represents the equity from the sale of the marital residence, which defendant owned prior to the marriage and continued to own during the marriage.

Defendant seeks the following orders over defendant's objection:  1) That he be reimbursed the amount of $763.00 representing the amount garnished from a joint income tax refund due to debt incurred by plaintiff prior to the marriage;  2) That he be reimbursed for disproportionate contributions to the marital residence;  and 3) That he be reimbursed $810.00 for lost wages and $7,500.00 in attorneys fees based on having to respond to plaintiff's “frivolous” motions during the course of this litigation.

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.

The court makes the following findings:

1) The parties were married on May 23, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.

2) 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.

3) One child, Alexandra DeLauro, has been born to the wife since the date of the marriage and defendant is the child's father.

4) The plaintiff is not currently pregnant.

5) The family has never received public assistance.

6) 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.

7) The parties reached agreements dated August 23, 2010 and November 22, 2010 resolving all custody and visitation issues related to the minor child, which the court incorporates into this order.

The parties met while working at Prudential in Hartford.   Defendant owned a home in Portland, Connecticut that the plaintiff moved into over two years prior to their May 23, 2008 marriage.   They maintained separate accounts throughout their relationship and plaintiff never acquired an interest in the marital residence.   Defendant, whose net weekly income of $875.00 is about twice that of plaintiff's, contributed roughly that proportion to the household account.   When the parties' daughter Alexandra was born on January 21, 2009, plaintiff took two months off, apparently with pay, and then worked a 70% schedule for the next seven months.   It does not appear that these schedule changes had a marked negative impact on her career.   The parties lived together until May 8, 2010, when plaintiff left the marital residence with their daughter.   Defendant subsequently sold the marital residence and currently lives with his mother in Rhode Island.

There are essentially no marital assets as the parties chose not to combine their finances during their marriage.   The parties each own their own vehicle.   Plaintiff has little in the way of debt or assets, owing $1,500.00 on her VISA card and showing insignificant bank balances.   She values her deferred compensation plans at $20,000.00.   Defendant has student loan debt in the amount of $17,650 and a credit card balance of $4,500.00.   However, he also possesses relatively significant assets, including $1,373.00 in bank accounts, $6,405.00 in stock, and deferred compensation plans and pensions valued at $146,556.00.

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. Plaintiff 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.

3. Defendant shall pay plaintiff child support in the amount of $172.00 per week in accordance with the child support guidelines.

4. Each party shall be responsible for his or her own medical insurance.   Plaintiff shall maintain medical insurance for the minor child so long as it remains available at a reasonable cost through her employer.   Defendant shall pay 47% of all reasonable and necessary unreimbursed medical expenses in accordance with the child support guidelines.

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

6. The court finds that defendant is insurable based on the testimony that he was enrolled, or was eligible to enroll, in a group life insurance plan through his employer.   Defendant shall procure a life insurance policy in the amount of $125,000.00 listing the minor child as beneficiary and the plaintiff as trustee.   This obligation shall cease upon the minor child reaching eighteen (18) years of age or if defendant becomes uninsurable or is unable to procure life insurance at a reasonable cost.

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

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

9. Defendant's claim for attorneys fees and lost wages is hereby denied based on the court's finding that plaintiff did not engage in frivolous motion practice.

10. 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.

11. The court declines to order either party to reimburse the other for claimed losses or expenses.

12. The court retains jurisdiction over the minor child's post-secondary education.

13. Defendant shall pay 47% of all reasonable work-related day care costs in accordance with the child support guidelines.

14. In accordance with the aforementioned agreements between the parties, they shall share joint legal custody of the minor child, her primary residence being with the plaintiff.

15. Defendant shall be entitled to retain the $4,170.97 in equity from the sale of the marital residence.

16. The plaintiff shall be restored to her birth name, McEleney.

17. The court declines plaintiff's request to change the minor child's last name to McEleney-DeLauro for the sole reason that it is without the power to do so.

18. There having been a contested hearing, the financial affidavits are hereby ordered unsealed.

James W. Abrams, Judge

Abrams, James W., J.