Silvana Scamporino v. Timothy Scamporino (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This dissolution of marriage action between the plaintiff wife, Silvana Scamporino, and the defendant husband, Timothy Scamporino, came before the court by a writ, summons and complaint, returnable to the court on October 13, 2009.¹  The case was tried to the court on October 28, 2010.   The plaintiff was represented by Attorney Lisa Faccadio and the defendant was unrepresented by counsel.   The parties filed a parental responsibility plan for their two minor children on March 8, 2010.

Only the plaintiff submitted claims for relief, and therein seeks the following financial relief:  alimony in the amount of $392 per week for ten years, as well as one-half of the defendant's monthly bonus;  child support in the amount of $189 per week in accordance with the guidelines;  payment by the defendant of the minor child's automobile insurance and auto loan totaling $639 per month, the Vista boat and the marital home.

In rendering this decision and making the ensuing orders, the court has carefully considered the statutory criteria provided in General Statutes §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82 regarding the assignment of the marital estate and alimony, respectively, § 46b-62 regarding attorneys fees, 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 at the time of trial.   There were numerous full exhibits, each of which was examined by the court.

I

FACTSAJurisdictional Findings

The court makes the following findings.   On March 10, 1990, the parties were married in Middletown, Connecticut.   The plaintiff resided in the state of Connecticut for more than one year prior to the commencement of the action.   Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction.   Two sons, ages eighteen and thirteen, were born to the wife.   The oldest is in college.   The family has never received public assistance.

The court finds that the allegations of the complaint are proven in truth.   The marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably, and for the reasons articulated below, there is no hope for reconciliation of the parties to their marriage.

B

Parties

Both parties are high school graduates.   Neither party has any health issues which substantially impede their capacity to earn a living.   The plaintiff, now forty-one years old, has been employed for the past eighteen months at Highlands Healthcare Center performing administrative duties in payroll and human resources.   With rare exception, she has always been employed full-time during the marriage.   She provides health insurance for herself and her sons through her employer.   Her gross weekly wage is $725 per week, and the court finds that her net weekly wage is $516.²

The defendant, now forty-three years old, has been employed in automobile sales since he was sixteen years old.   Historically, he has been a hard-worker and a strong earner.   For example, while working for Balise Motor Sales of West Springfield MA, he earned $119,102, including $62,500 in regular earnings and $54,500 in commission earnings, year to date as of December 8, 2007.   Additionally, from January 2010, through October 8, 2010, he was employed as the sales manager for Hartford Toyota/Mac Motors Inc. and earned $1,442 per week.   He resigned from this position voluntarily on October 8, 2010, citing “promises” which were not kept by the dealership.   He then pursued a job that was less stressful.   Exhausted by the difficult commute and long hours and suffering from high blood pressure, he eventually found suitable employment, just days before trial, selling BMW automobiles for Aquidneck Autocenter, Inc., d/b/a BMW of Newport, in Middletown, RI, effective October 11, 2010.   He earns a weekly salary of $375 and receives a draw of $350 based on a minimum of five days worked per week.   His total compensation is subject to additional commissions based on performance.   The defendant reports gross weekly wages of $725.   The court finds that his net weekly wage is $572.   The defendant can realistically be expected to earn significant commissions based on his past performance, though it is impossible to predict the additional compensation after only a few weeks of employment.

C

Marital Property

Throughout the marriage, both parties made contributions to the acquisition, maintenance and preservation of the marital assets, including real estate.   The defendant's economic contributions from employment were greater than that of his wife through most of the marriage.   The plaintiff made, however, significant financial contributions from her employment earnings, and, moreover, she contributed in nonmonetary ways to her husband's career goals.   She was the primary homemaker for the family, and she had the primary responsibility for the children during the course of the marriage.

All the parties' assets, which are limited, were accumulated during the marriage.   Before this action was filed, there were significant monies received from the sale of their condominium ($20,000) and a personal injury action filed on the plaintiff's behalf after a slip and fall accident ($35,500), but they have long since been exhausted.   The marital home on 141 Peters Lane in Rockfall, Connecticut has a value of $388,000 but is subject to a first mortgage in the same amount.³

D

Additional Assets and Liabilities

The plaintiff owns a 2005 Pontiac Vibe with a value of $10,000.   The defendant owns a 2002 Mercedes E320 with a value of $6,000, which is subject to a loan of $10,000.   The plaintiff has overdrawn savings accounts with TD Bank and Webster Bank, as well as an overdrawn checking account with Citizens Bank. The defendant has nominal funds in a Bank of America account.   The parties' 258 Vista boat was repossessed.   Their personal effects and household furnishings have a value of $10,000.

The parties have significant short-term liabilities in their individual names.   The plaintiff has an unsecured loan with her brother totaling $10,000,⁴ medical bills of approximately $6,500, legal fees of $1,196 and obligations to Sheffield Finance of $3,300, and to Care One-Debt Relief for $26,000.

The defendant has credit card obligations totaling $6,500.

E

Causes for the Dissolution of Marriage

The plaintiff painted an unflattering picture of the marriage.   In 2007, she learned her husband was having an affair.   The defendant refused to acknowledge the relationship until he was confronted with the results of an investigation in late 2008.   He returned home and participated in counseling for a period of time.   The plaintiff's commitment to the twenty-year marriage endured until she learned the defendant resumed his affair.   The defendant left the marital home for the last time on August 23, 2009.   Outside of therapy he has had no contact with his sons.   The court finds that the defendant's pattern of deception and betrayal of his wife was entirely inconsistent with his marital obligations to her.   His misconduct was the primary cause of the breakdown of the marriage.

II

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing, the court orders the following:

1. The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the basis of an irretrievable breakdown.

2. The father will pay to the mother child-support in the amount of $126 per week by way of wage garnishment, which is in accordance with the child support guidelines.   In addition, the father will pay 60 percent and the mother 40 percent of the unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, as provided for in the guidelines.   The definition of a medical and dental expense is to be broadly construed to include, but not be limited to medical, dental, orthodontic, hospitalization, optical, pharmaceutical, and psychological and/or psychiatric counseling and/or treatment.

3. The parties shall be individually responsible for their own health insurance.   The defendant shall have the right under COBRA to elect medical insurance through the plaintiff's employer at his expense.   The plaintiff shall provide and maintain medical insurance on behalf of the minor child for so long as she is able to do so under the terms of her policy.   The defendant shall be responsible for the debt to Dr. Sebastian Milardo.

4. The plaintiff shall claim the minor child for state and federal tax purposes in 2010.   If the defendant is earning more than $45,000 per year, the parties shall alternate claiming the minor child as a dependent for state and federal tax purposes, with the plaintiff claiming the minor child in even years, and the defendant claiming the minor child in odd years, provided each parent is current on any alimony, child support, unreimbursed medical/dental, extracurricular and postsecondary education expenses, as outlined in this decision.

5. The defendant shall be required to pay alimony to the plaintiff at the rate of $1 per year.   Alimony shall continue until the happening of the first of the following events:  a) the death of either party;  b) the plaintiff's remarriage;  c) the plaintiff's cohabitation as defined by statute;  or d) seven years from the date of the dissolution of the marriage.   Alimony shall be nonmodifiable as to term.

6. The plaintiff shall be required to continue to maintain $ 500,000 of life insurance on her life.   She shall name the children as beneficiaries, in equal shares, so long as they are twenty-two or younger.

7. Property Division.   The residence at 141 Peters Lane, Rockfall, Connecticut:  The plaintiff shall have exclusive possession of the property and shall be responsible for the mortgages, credit lines, taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance and upkeep, and she shall hold the defendant harmless for the same.

8. The plaintiff shall retain her TD Bank, Webster Bank and Citizens Bank accounts free from any claim by the defendant.   The defendant shall retain his Bank of America accounts free of any claim by the plaintiff.

9. College Education.   The court shall reserve jurisdiction under General Statutes § 46b-56c and make orders with respect to the educational expenses for the children.⁵

10. The plaintiff shall be the sole owner of the 2005 Pontiac Vibe and the 2002 Mercedes.   The plaintiff shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated with said vehicles, and shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless with respect thereto.

11. Each party shall pay their own attorneys fees.

12. Liabilities. Each party shall be responsible for the remaining liabilities listed on their respective financial affidavit and will indemnify and hold the other harmless therefrom.

13. Each party shall be the sole owner of their respective home furnishings, personal effects and jewelry, presently in their physical custody, provided, however, the defendant shall receive his grandmother's piano and the dealership/automobile pictures.

14. Each party is ordered to sign whatever documents are necessary, and is presented to them, by the other party to effectuate these orders.

15. Plaintiff's maiden name of Pitruzzello is restored.

These orders are effective immediately.   It is so ordered.

It is so ordered.

HARRY E. CALMAR, JUDGE

FOOTNOTES

FN1. A prior dissolution action filed by the plaintiff with a return date of May 6, 2008, was withdrawn on May 3, 2009..  FN1. A prior dissolution action filed by the plaintiff with a return date of May 6, 2008, was withdrawn on May 3, 2009.

FN2. The plaintiff has occasionally rented a room, informally, in the marital home to third parties, receiving approximately $600 in income.   The most recent tenant moved out in October 2010..  FN2. The plaintiff has occasionally rented a room, informally, in the marital home to third parties, receiving approximately $600 in income.   The most recent tenant moved out in October 2010.

FN3. It was the defendant's obligation pendente lite to pay the mortgage monthly.   He negotiated a reduction in the monthly payment, and this resulted in additional indebtedness, which effectively erased any equity in the home..  FN3. It was the defendant's obligation pendente lite to pay the mortgage monthly.   He negotiated a reduction in the monthly payment, and this resulted in additional indebtedness, which effectively erased any equity in the home.

FN4. These monies were used to purchase the Pontiac Vibe..  FN4. These monies were used to purchase the Pontiac Vibe.

FN5. The court finds it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact.  General Statutes § 46b-56c(c)..  FN5. The court finds it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact.  General Statutes § 46b-56c(c).

Calmar, Harry E., J.