Teressa L. Shaker v. David A. Shaker (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This dissolution of marriage action between the plaintiff wife, Teressa L. Shaker, and the defendant husband, David A. Shaker, came before the court by a writ, summons and complaint, returnable to the court on November 10, 2009.   The case was tried to the court on November 16, 2010.   The plaintiff was represented by attorney Howard Gould and the defendant was represented by attorney James Flaherty.   The court appointed attorney Sue A. Cousineau as guardian ad litem (GAL) for the minor children.¹

Both parties submitted claims for relief.   Regarding financial support, the plaintiff proposes that she receive one dollar per year in alimony, that neither party pay child support to the other in light on the shared parenting arrangement, that she receive one-half of the equity in the marital home, and all of the funds remaining in the defendant's workers' compensation escrow.

By way of financial orders, the defendant proposes the following:  that he receive child support from the mother in the amount of $187 per week, retroactive to February 22, 2010;  that neither party pay alimony to the other;  that he be the sole owner of the marital home;  that he receive all of the funds from his workers' compensation escrow;  and that the parties divide equally the proceeds resulting from the plaintiff's wrongful termination action.

In rendering this decision and making the ensuing orders, the court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in General Statutes § 46b-56c as to educational support orders, General Statues § 46b-66a as to the conveyance of real property, General Statutes §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82, regarding the assignment of the marital estate and alimony, respectively, General Statutes § 46b-84 as to support and medical insurance for the minor children, General Statutes § 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 that confront the court.   The court has considered the parties' arguments, proposed findings of fact and proposed orders.   Additionally, 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 May 5, 1995, the parties were married in Winsted, 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 children, Morgan age fourteen and Thomas age twelve, were born to the wife.²  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

The plaintiff, now thirty-seven years old, has been an enterprising, energetic and self-motivated individual since her first daughter, Alyssa, was born twenty years ago.³  After Alyssa was born, the plaintiff took accounting classes at a community college.   She was working for the Register Citizen in its ad department as a secretary at the time of her marriage in 1995.   After her second daughter, Morgan, was born in 1996, she became a part-time paraprofessional/library aide for the Winchester school district.   Soon thereafter, she was offered an opportunity to further her education in computer technology and, upon certification, obtain full-time employment.   Until her job was terminated in 2001, she remained employed by the Winchester school district earning approximately $50,000 per year.⁴  After two years as a homemaker, the plaintiff was hired as a software specialist for the Clinton school system in August 2003, at an initial salary of $56,000.   In 2008, the plaintiff initiated an online associates degree program in technology at Kaplan University.   In October 2009, the plaintiff was suspended for two weeks without pay from the Clinton Board of Education after she brought an inoperable antique gun and other personal belongings from her home to her office at work.   The plaintiff was terminated from her job in March 2010, for her disciplinary history and failure to seek approval for time off from work.   The plaintiff hopes to return to school and pursue a degree in nursing.   At the time of trial, the plaintiff was unemployed and receiving $576 per week in unemployment compensation.⁵  The court finds that the plaintiff's net weekly wage is $509.

The defendant has a history as a hard-worker and a strong earner.   He has been employed as a police officer for the past thirteen years.   Initially employed by the Torrington Police Department, he commenced employment with the Farmington Police Department after the family moved to Winchester in 2001.   In 2006, while on duty, he was hit by a drunk driver and suffered a significant injury to his back.   He received a net of $20,000 in workers' compensation benefits.   He earns approximately $1,780 per week, inclusive of his base salary and overtime.   The court finds that his net weekly wage is $1,291.   Neither party has any health issues that substantially impede their capacity to earn a living.

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 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.   The marital home at 16 Stone Wall Lane, Clinton, Connecticut, where the family moved in 2003, has a value of $415,000.   The home is subject to a first mortgage in the amount of $406,000 and is currently in foreclosure as the mortgage has not been paid since July 2009.⁶  There is no extractable equity.

Before this action was filed, there were significant monies received from the plaintiff's wrongful discharge action and the defendant's workers' compensation case.   All but $10,000 has long since been exhausted.

D

Additional Assets and Liabilities

The plaintiff operates a 2003 Chevrolet Suburban with a value of $8,000.   The defendant operates a 2004 Saturn Ion with a value of $2,000.   The plaintiff has nominal funds in Bank of America accounts.   The defendant has approximately $535 in Torrington Municipal bank accounts.   The parties' 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 totaling $8,500 with her parents, which she utilized for attorneys fees;  school and student loan obligations totaling $13,500;  obligations to her prior attorney totaling $27,000 and credit card debt with Lowe's and Chase totaling $3,000 and $6,600, respectively.

The defendant has obligations to his attorneys totaling approximately $50,000 and credit card obligations as follows:  Wal-Mart $300, Bank of America $4,413, Home Depot $2,400, and Discover Card $13,731.

The plaintiff has deferred compensation plans with the Clinton public schools with a total value of $16,272.   The defendant has an IRA worth $1,117, a pension with the town of Farmington worth $57,665 and other deferred compensation assets with a total value of $7,986.   Both the plaintiff and the defendant carry term life insurance in their names with a face value of $500,000 and $203,000, respectively.

The parties have a joint obligation to Citi Card totaling $27,500.

E

Causes for the Dissolution of Marriage

The plaintiff painted an unflattering picture of the marriage.   She describes her husband as excessively controlling, critical of her actions and appearance and negatively influenced by an unfounded belief that she was unfaithful.   In 2002, she raised the prospect of a divorce for the first time.   Following a difficult summer in 2009, the parties were involved for a brief time in counseling.   The plaintiff initiated a divorce action in September 2009.   Regrettably, their difficulties accelerated and the parties were involved in a number of domestic violence altercations the following October.   Both parties have suffered physical injury at the hands of the other.   The parties attempted to implement a bird nest agreement.   On recommendation of the GAL, the plaintiff moved out of the marital home in February 2010.   She initially lived with her brother in Meriden, Connecticut, and then with John Pryor, who she met in January 2010, and with whom she subsequently developed a romantic relationship in March 2010.⁷

The defendant relates that his wife has a spirited temper but that he loved her and was devoted to their marriage.   Commencing the summer of 2009, she began evening employment in the restaurant industry to assist with finances and was soon working four to five nights per week.   Soon thereafter, she expressed her grave disappointment in him and their marriage.

The court finds both parties contributed to the breakdown of their marriage and neither should be held more culpable or responsible than the other.

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 plaintiff will pay to the defendant child-support in the amount of $114 per week by way of wage garnishment, which is in accordance with the child support guidelines.   In addition, the defendant will pay 75 percent and the plaintiff 25 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 equalize their deferred compensation plans (pensions, individual IRAs, 401(k), Keogh, etc.) valued as of the date of dissolution of the marriage.   The division shall be accomplished by qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) as necessary.   All interests or investment gains and losses pertaining to the QDRO, occurring after the date of dissolution, shall accrue to the recipient of that share.   The parties shall share equally the cost of preparing the necessary QDROs.   The court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over this order.

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

5. The defendant shall claim the minor children for state and federal tax purposes in 2011.   If the plaintiff is earning more than $45,000 per year, the parties shall share the minor children for state and federal tax purposes until there is one dependant;  thereafter, the plaintiff shall claim the minor child in even years, and the defendant shall claim the minor child in odd years, provided each parent is current on any alimony, child support, unreimbursed medical/dental expenses or extracurricular and post-secondary education expenses, as outlined in this decision.

6. If the parties desire to file a joint federal and state tax return for 2009 or 2010, they shall elect to do so by notifying the other by March 28, 2011, and any refunds shall be equally divided.

7. The defendant shall pay periodic alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $1 per year.   Alimony shall terminate on the earliest of the following events:  (a) either parties' death;  (b) the remarriage of the plaintiff, or (c) five years from the date of the dissolution of the marriage.   The statutory provisions of General Statutes § 46b-86(b) shall apply to the occasions of the plaintiff's cohabitation or living with another person.   Alimony shall be nonmodifiable as to term.

8. The $10,000 remaining from the proceeds of the defendant's workers' compensation claim shall be used to pay the GAL fees.   The plaintiff shall be responsible to pay $931 and the defendant $331 of the remaining balance.   The GAL shall be paid, in full, within thirty days of the date of the judgment.

9. The parties shall be required to continue to maintain $250,000 of life insurance on their lives and shall name the children as beneficiaries, in equal shares, so long as they are twenty-two or younger.

10. Property Division.   The residence at 16 Stone Wall Lane, Clinton, Connecticut:  The defendant husband shall be entitled to sole ownership of the former marital residence located at 16 Stone Wall Lane, Clinton, Connecticut.   The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by quit-claim deed any and all interest she may have in this property within twenty-one days, and the defendant shall be solely responsible for the mortgage, taxes and insurance with respect to said property and all other costs and expenses associated with the property from the date of judgment.   The defendant shall indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless from the same.

11. The plaintiff shall retain her Bank of America accounts free from any claim by the defendant.   The defendant shall retain his Torrington Municipal Bank accounts free of any claim by the plaintiff.

12. College Education.   The court shall reserve jurisdiction under General Statutes § 46b-56c and make orders with respect to the educational expenses for the children.⁸

13. The plaintiff shall be the sole owner of the 2003 Chevrolet.   The defendant shall be the sole owner of the 2004 Saturn.   The parties shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated with said vehicles, and shall indemnify and hold the other harmless with respect thereto.

14. Remaining personal property:  The parties have not yet divided all of their personal property.   The plaintiff shall return to the defendant his coin collection and the antique gun.   The defendant shall give to the plaintiff the grandmother's clock.   If they are unable to agree upon the distribution of their remaining personal property, they shall exchange a list of the items that they desire.   Those items on which they do not agree shall be the subject of the mediation.   The items on which they cannot agree, after the mediation, shall be distributed on an alternating basis.   The wife shall select the first item she desires, then the husband shall select the item he desires.   This alternating selection shall continue until all items in dispute have been distributed.   This selection process shall occur no later than ninety days from the date of this decision.   The husband and wife shall each retain his or her own clothing, jewelry and other personal effects, including items he or she may have received as gifts from the other party.

15. The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for paying the following debts and she shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless from the same:  Discover card in the amount of $13,731;  the Lowes card in the amount of $3,000;  the Bank of America credit card in the amount of $4,413;  the Chase card in the amount of $6,600;  the Wal-Mart card in the amount of $300;  her student loan obligations;  and the loan from her parents.

16. The defendant shall be solely responsible for paying the following debts and shall indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless from the same:  the Citi Card in the amount of $27,500;  and the Home Depot card in the amount of $2,400.

17. 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.

18. Each party shall pay their own attorneys fees.

19. The plaintiff's maiden name of Reese is restored.

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

These orders are effective immediately.   It is so ordered.

HARRY E. CALMAR, JUDGE

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The Guardian Ad Litem's fees in the amount of $15,362.50 are found to be reasonable and necessary for the resolution of the parenting plan in this matter.   The parties were both ordered to pay one-half of the GAL fees.   The plaintiff paid $1,750 and owes the GAL $5,931.   The defendant paid $2,350 and owes $5,331..  FN1. The Guardian Ad Litem's fees in the amount of $15,362.50 are found to be reasonable and necessary for the resolution of the parenting plan in this matter.   The parties were both ordered to pay one-half of the GAL fees.   The plaintiff paid $1,750 and owes the GAL $5,931.   The defendant paid $2,350 and owes $5,331.

FN2. On November 2, 2010, the parties entered into a written agreement regarding custody, primary residence and access of the minor children, which was entered as an order on the same date.   The parenting in custody agreement resolved the parenting and custody issues between the parties..  FN2. On November 2, 2010, the parties entered into a written agreement regarding custody, primary residence and access of the minor children, which was entered as an order on the same date.   The parenting in custody agreement resolved the parenting and custody issues between the parties.

FN3. In 1991, while in high school, the plaintiff had a daughter Alyssa, out of wedlock, who has lived with the parties but is not issue of this marriage..  FN3. In 1991, while in high school, the plaintiff had a daughter Alyssa, out of wedlock, who has lived with the parties but is not issue of this marriage.

FN4. Following her termination, the plaintiff filed a wrongful termination action which was eventually settled for $72,000 in 2006.   The plaintiff received $50,000 following the payment of attorneys fees and costs.   The funds have long since been exhausted repaying consumer debt and on household improvements and expenses..  FN4. Following her termination, the plaintiff filed a wrongful termination action which was eventually settled for $72,000 in 2006.   The plaintiff received $50,000 following the payment of attorneys fees and costs.   The funds have long since been exhausted repaying consumer debt and on household improvements and expenses.

FN5. In 2009, the plaintiff earned $61,152 working for the Clinton public schools, Country Squire Restaurant and The Gap Inc..  FN5. In 2009, the plaintiff earned $61,152 working for the Clinton public schools, Country Squire Restaurant and The Gap Inc.

FN6. It was the defendant's obligation pendente lite to pay the mortgage monthly.   In order to manage his expenses, he negotiated a reduction in the monthly payment, which resulted in additional indebtedness..  FN6. It was the defendant's obligation pendente lite to pay the mortgage monthly.   In order to manage his expenses, he negotiated a reduction in the monthly payment, which resulted in additional indebtedness.

FN7. The plaintiff has made no financial contribution to the household since she left the marital home.   The defendant has not provided the plaintiff with financial support since she left the home..  FN7. The plaintiff has made no financial contribution to the household since she left the marital home.   The defendant has not provided the plaintiff with financial support since she left the home.

FN8. The court finds it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to the children for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact.  General Statutes § 46b-56c(c)..  FN8. The court finds it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to the children for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact.  General Statutes § 46b-56c(c).

Calmar, Harry E., J.