Ebrahim Balbisi v. Theresa Balbisi (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This action came on for trial before the court on October 28 and December 3, 2010.   Based on the evidence presented to the court, the court makes the following findings and conclusions and enters the following orders and decrees herein.

The parties herein were married on August 14, 1993 in Cold Springs, New York. The parties lived together as husband and wife until February of 1998.   At that time the marriage broke down irretrievably and has remained in that state ever since.   There is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and the parties have lived apart for quite some time.   There are no children born of this marriage and the defendant wife is not now pregnant.   The court further finds that at least one of the parties to the marriage has been a resident to this State for at least twelve months preceding the date of filing of the complaint and both parties have been residents of the State for at least twelve months preceding the date of this decree.

The court finds that it has jurisdiction over both of the parties to this proceeding and over this action.

Neither party has received public assistance from the State of Connecticut during the term of the marriage.

The court determines that the parties are entitled to a decree of a divorce from this court and such decree of divorce is hereby granted and the marriage dissolved.

The plaintiff in this case is a 37-year-old male.   Though currently unemployed, he is a graduate of pharmacy school and was previously employed as a pharmacist and, subsequently, as a Professor of Pharmacology at St. John's University.   In 1995 he was involved in a significant car accident in New York State.   As a result of this accident and continuing deterioration, he became disabled in 2007 and had to stop work.   The defendant did not contest the plaintiff's claim of disability.   As a result of his continuing disability, his employment with St. John's University was terminated in September of 2009 and he has remained unemployed since then.   The plaintiff became entitled to disability payments effective as of October 2007 when benefits in the amount of $2,124.00 per month were awarded.   The husband's financial condition is reflected in defendant's Exhibit F.

Ms. Balbisi is a 56-year-old female.   She described her health currently as poor and stated that she suffers from severe sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema and a herniated disc.   She feels that as a result of these she is disabled and advised that she has been out on a disability from her employer since March 2009.   She feels she is now permanently disabled though no medical evidence was submitted in this regard.   She did introduce an exhibit (defendant's Exhibit G) which showed that she had been approved for disability.

In fixing and nature and value of the property if any to be assigned herein and in considering awards of alimony the court has considered all those factors set out under Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 46b-81(c) and 46b-82.

Property

As a result of their longstanding separation, there is little dispute in terms of property.   Neither party identified any property they claimed for themselves as being in the possession of the other and each denied having possession of any property belonging to the other.   The one exception to this was a 1996 Honda which is in the name of Mr. Balbisi but which is in the possession of Ms. Balbisi.   Both parties requested the court award this vehicle to Ms. Balbisi and direct that they take appropriate action to remove Mr. Balbisi from the title.

As to all other property, the court orders and decrees that each party shall keep and maintain as their sole and exclusive property all personal property currently in their possession.   Further, each party shall maintain all their financial accounts, financial assets, monies, pensions and retirement accounts as well as their liabilities and debts as their sole and exclusive property free of all claim of the other.

Additionally, the court awards the 1996 Honda automobile to Ms. Balbisi and directs that within 30 days of the date of this order she will take all reasonable efforts to have title transferred to her.   Mr. Balbisi is ordered to cooperate with her in this regard to see that his name is removed from the title and title placed in the name of Ms. Balbisi.

Alimony

Mr. Balbisi stated in court, after being warned of the preclusion of any subsequent request, that he was not asking for any of alimony.   Accordingly, no alimony is awarded to Mr. Balbisi.

Ms. Balbisi on the other hand did request that the court make an award of alimony to her but did not request any specific amount.   She stated she would request whatever amount the court decided was fair and equitable.

It appears to the court that each of the parties hereto has demonstrated significant health concerns and limited, if any ability or opportunity for significant future income or the acquisition of capital assets.   Each party currently receives disability income and no evidence was presented that such disability income in one form or fashion will not continue into the future.   Moreover, each of the parties has the potential for significant need in the future.   Under these circumstances as well as all the factors discussed previously, the court determines that alimony should be awarded to Ms. Balbisi, in the amount of $1.00 for a period of four (4) years.   During this four-year period, Mr. Balbisi shall immediately notify Ms. Balbisi of any change in his employment status and shall furnish copies of all state and federal tax returns to Ms. Balbisi, within ten (10) days of filing.   This obligation to pay alimony shall terminate on the death of either party or Ms. Balbisi's remarriage.

Other Issues

The only significant other issue involved in this case was Mr. Balbisi's request that the court order Ms. Balbisi to place him on her health insurance policy.   In this regard he testified that he had significant continuing medical expenses, particularly with regard to medications.   He also referred the court to prior decisions, pendente lite, wherein the court had entered orders directing Ms. Balbisi to add Mr. Balbisi to her medical health insurance policy available through her employer.   Plaintiff claimed that the interim orders of the court were absolute and without condition and further that the defendant had failed to add him to her policy.   He asked the court as part of its decree to order that the defendant add him to her insurance policy.

Defendant agreed that plaintiff had not in fact been added to the defendant's policy but claimed that the orders of the court had been conditioned on the plaintiff paying for any increased expense due to plaintiff's addition to the policy.   Defendant further stated that upon application of the defendant to add the plaintiff to her policy, she learned this would automatically effect a change making him the beneficiary of other insurance benefits which she intended to go to her children by another marriage.   Defendant introduced a written request to the plaintiff to execute appropriate paperwork which would avoid these unintended consequences and claimed there was no violation of the court order as plaintiff refused to execute such supplemental documentation.

At the time of trial, defendant reported that upon investigation, it became clear the plaintiff could not be added to her policy unless at the time of the request (and for some substantial period thereafter) they remained husband and wife.   By virtue of a decree of divorce, however, such coverage would become unavailable.   Given the obvious disagreement and understandings as to the prior orders of the court, the absence of any evidence that plaintiff was impacted by any failure to provide insurance in the interim period and the inability of the defendant to actually effect any such order, the court determines no relief should be afforded the plaintiff and that defendant should not be ordered to add the plaintiff to any policy or insurance at this time.

Based upon the limited financial conditions of the parties, the numerous claims and issues raised back and forth and the relatively equal status of the parties herein, the court determines that neither side should be awarded any costs or attorneys fees with regard to the other party.

So ordered by the court this 17th day of December 2010.

BY THE COURT

WENZEL, J.

Wenzel, William, J.