Luz A. Hernandez v. Josue Burgos (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The parties come seeking a dissolution of their marriage.   The action was filed on May 10, 2010, and tried in two half-day hearings on November 17, 2010 and February 3, 2011.   The facts are as follows:  The parties were married in Hartford on February 28, 2009.   The plaintiff is a Colombian citizen and the defendant and his sister sponsored her application for permanent resident status in the United States.   As part of that process, they had to make certain guarantees to the Department of Homeland Security in a form known as an “I-864.” Among those guarantees was a promise to support the immigrant “at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size ․” ¹

The parties entered into a residential lease with a roommate for an apartment in East Hartford.   Their arrangement with Filipe Conde, the roommate, was to share the rent and utility bills 70% from the married couple and 30% from Mr. Conde.   The lease term ran from May 1, 2009 to May 10, 2010.

This short marriage was troubled from the start.   The cause of the problems depends on which side is telling the story, but it is clear that the couple argued frequently and the East Hartford police were called for a domestic dispute at least once.   The defendant left the marital residence on or about March 15, 2010.²  Much of the dispute between the parties in this matter centers on their obligations to the lease and utilities from the time the defendant left to the end of the lease.   Additionally, there are disputes about various items of personal property.

The plaintiff testified that she was subjected to domestic violence and had to be treated for it both at a hospital and at the Institute of Living.   The defendant denied knowing that she had ever been hospitalized.   No medical or hospital records were provided as evidence, but the plaintiff's testimony was credible to the court.   The defendant testified that he gave the plaintiff three thousand ($3,000) dollars from a 2009 tax refund of approximately four thousand six hundred ($4,600) dollars and she acknowledged receipt of those funds.

The plaintiff testified that while she was visiting her family in Colombia during February 2010, the defendant pawned her personal jewelry because he needed cash.   The defendant testified that they pawned the jewelry together so she could have some cash for her trip to Colombia.   However, the documentation shows only his information and signature on the pawn ticket receipt.   The jewelry was pawned for two hundred fifty ($250) dollars on February 10, 2010.   The plaintiff finally redeemed the jewelry in December 2010, after paying a monthly holding fee of fifty ($50) dollars to keep the jewelry in the shop plus the three hundred ($300) dollars redemption fee, for a total expense of seven hundred fifty ($750) dollars.

The plaintiff testified that she made good efforts to pay the couple's portion of the utility bills after the defendant left, but was not completely successful.   For most of the spring and summer of 2010, the plaintiff was either unemployed or worked as Spanish tutor for the New Haven school system.   She did receive some assistance from her family in Colombia.   The defendant submitted a number of statements from the plaintiff's Colombian Citibank account.³  They are written in Spanish, but the testimony afforded the court a basic understanding of the accounting.   Those bank statements show that the plaintiff received a monthly rental income for a condominium she owns in Bogota, Colombia in the amount of six hundred ($600) dollars.   Her undisputed testimony was that all of that rental income was consumed by the mortgage and other payments for the property;  she had no net profit for her immediate use.   The statements also show that over the months she would receive small amounts of money ranging from a low of approximately one hundred sixty-five ($165) dollars to a high of four hundred ($400) dollars.   All of these deposits totaled one thousand four hundred fifteen ($1,415) dollars over the five-month period.   She also testified that she received a loan from her brother in South America in the amount of one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars.   As of late November, the plaintiff has found a teaching position in the New Haven system as an assistant teacher of special education for an annual salary of $19,290.

The plaintiff testified, and was supported by the testimony of Filipe Conde, that after the defendant left, she continued to pay the 70% share of the rent attributable to the couple.   The undisputed testimony also indicated that when the defendant left the apartment, there was an unpaid balance on the electric bill in the amount of just under five hundred ($500) dollars plus the monthly bill of almost three hundred ($300) dollars, for a total bill of approximately seven hundred seventy-three ($773) dollars as of the February 25, 2010 statement.   The evidence also supports the testimony that the cable bill of March 10, 2010 has a previous balance of about one hundred forty ($140) dollars and a current charge totaling just under three hundred thirty ($330) dollars.   That bill included a pay-per-view item purchased by the defendant while the plaintiff was in Colombia.   Those utility bills multiplied by seventy (70%) percent and divided in half leave an amount claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant of $385.38.

The monthly rental for the marital home was $869.   The couple's 70% share would have been $608.30, with each party contributing one-half or $304.15.   The plaintiff claims that he owes his share of the rent for March 2010, April 2010 and the first ten days of May 2010 which would equal $709.68.   The plaintiff and Mr. Conde did not actually vacate the apartment until the 19th of that month and the plaintiff claims the defendant should contribute to the additional nine days since he did not give notice to the landlord of his leaving.   The defendant admits that he did not give notice, but whether he did or not would not have made a difference since the apartment was still occupied by the plaintiff and Mr. Conde.   He should not be held liable for that obligation.   He also testified that he returned his apartment key, but the plaintiff was charged the additional charge for his missing key and she claims that the $35 deposit should be placed on his side of the ledger.

The defendant testified that he owes nothing.   He points to the large amount of the joint tax refund he gave the plaintiff;  the fact that he left all the household furniture;  and the claim that he did pay his share of the rent, leaving only the utilities to the plaintiff and the roommate.   He claims that all the utilities were paid current when he left and he continued to pay for the plaintiff's cell phone and car insurance.   Regarding the money from the tax refund-that was given to the plaintiff prior to his leaving and does not appear to have been connected to the separation in any way.   The defendant's testimony in this matter is not credible.   He offers no evidence to support his claims while the plaintiff provided several documents to support her version of events.   Additionally, her testimony is supported by Filipe Conde, the roommate.

Having reviewed the case file, the testimony of the parties and the evidence presented during the hearing, the court finds as follows:

1.  The court has jurisdiction to hear this matter;

2.  All statutory stays have expired;  the case management date having been September 13, 2010;

3.  The allegations of the complaint have been proven to be true;

4.  Neither party is found to be at greater fault than the other for the breakdown of the marriage;

5.  Both parties are presently employed and in reasonably good health;

6.  The defendant pawned the plaintiff's jewelry and she was forced to redeem the items, but she had an obligation to mitigate her loss by doing so in a timely fashion;  and

7.  The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the rent obligation and a portion of the utility bills that were incurred prior to his vacating the marital home.

Accordingly, after having considered all of the relevant statutory criteria, including but not limited to Connecticut General Statutes, as amended, §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82, the court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The marriage of the parties is dissolved.   Each party is now a single and separate person;

2. No alimony is awarded to either party except for the limited award detailed below;

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as a property settlement the sum of $1,580.06.   Said sum includes the following liabilities:

a. $709.68 representing the defendant's share of the apartment rent for the months of March and April and the first ten days of May 2010;

b. $35 for the unreturned key to the landlord;

c. $385.38 for the defendant's share of the utility bills existing when he left the apartment;  and

d. $450 to redeem the jewelry, including three months' payment to keep the items in the pawn shop at $50 per month.

Said payment shall be made in four monthly installments of $350.00 and a fifth and final payment of $180.06.   The first such payment shall be made on or before March 15, 2011, and the remaining payments shall be made on the 15th day of each succeeding month, with the last payment to be made no later than July 15, 2011;

4. Should the parties be subjected to any audit, adjustments or claims by any taxing authority for the tax returns filed jointly for tax year 2009, each party shall be solely responsible for any payment, penalty and/or interest that results from any incorrect or mistaken tax information supplied by that person.   That person shall hold harmless and indemnify the other for any such liability.   In the event there is no clear determination of fault for the incorrect filing and/or payment of the tax liability, the parties shall share equally the financial obligation that results.   The court awards each party alimony of one dollar per year for a period of seven (7) years, modifiable only as is necessary to enforce the provisions of this tax-related income order and the medical bill order below;

5. Each party shall own free and clear of any claim from the other any and all property, both real and personal, now in their possession.   They shall each be solely liable for any cost involved in the ownership and/or possession of such real or personal property;

6. If the defendant had medical insurance coverage for the months of March 2010 through the date of judgment, or any part thereof, he shall cooperate with the plaintiff to submit her medical and ambulance bills incurred during the marriage to said insurance carrier for payment.   In the event he receives any reimbursement payment for such claims, he shall give such funds to the plaintiff and she shall be responsible for payment to the providers of the service.   Any remaining obligation for such bills after any insurance coverage shall be shared equally by the parties.   In the event that the defendant has medical bills for the same period, this order shall apply to his obligations as well.   The limited alimony order detailed above shall protect the parties from any liability from the other party under this provision as well;

7. All other debts not specifically included in these orders shall be the sole responsibility of the party which incurred same, and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the other party from such obligations, if any.

BY THE COURT,

Adelman, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Although raised as an issue during the hearing, the plaintiff did not claim that this court was bound by this Federal form.   Accordingly, the court declines to comment on its impact on the claim for alimony made by the plaintiff in her prayer for relief..  FN1. Although raised as an issue during the hearing, the plaintiff did not claim that this court was bound by this Federal form.   Accordingly, the court declines to comment on its impact on the claim for alimony made by the plaintiff in her prayer for relief.

FN2. The defendant testified that he actually left earlier, but was back and forth spending less and less time.   He estimated that he was out of the apartment by the end of February 2010..  FN2. The defendant testified that he actually left earlier, but was back and forth spending less and less time.   He estimated that he was out of the apartment by the end of February 2010.

FN3. Counsel for the defendant made a point that he has only received the statements presented as evidence-the last being for the period ending September 23, 2010-and that the plaintiff did not continually update the disclosure as required by the Practice Book. Five statements for the months ending April 23, 2010, June 23, 2010, July 23, 2010, August 23, 2010 and September 23, 2010 were entered as exhibits.   No motion to compel or exclude was filed so the court accepted as evidence what was offered..  FN3. Counsel for the defendant made a point that he has only received the statements presented as evidence-the last being for the period ending September 23, 2010-and that the plaintiff did not continually update the disclosure as required by the Practice Book. Five statements for the months ending April 23, 2010, June 23, 2010, July 23, 2010, August 23, 2010 and September 23, 2010 were entered as exhibits.   No motion to compel or exclude was filed so the court accepted as evidence what was offered.

Adelman, Gerard I., J.