Stephen J. Bruno v. Lisa Bruno (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION, DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2011, TO THE APPLICATION FOR BANK EXECUTION BY THE DEFENDANT

Many of the facts that give rise to this objection are not in dispute.   The marriage between the parties was dissolved by Memorandum of Decision dated March 17, 2008.   Under that Memorandum of Decision, the plaintiff was to transfer to the defendant in excess of $2,000,000 in liquid assets.

The defendant seeks to enforce some of the orders entered by this court in the Memorandum of Decision dated March 17, 2008.   In her application for an execution she states that the date of judgment is March 17, 2008 and amounts to $2,239,985.79.   The defendant then has a Schedule A to her application for execution in which she itemizes five separate postjudgment orders.   These postjudgment orders will be considered seriatim.

The first postjudgment order that the defendant refers to was dated July 2, 2010.   At a hearing held on July 2, 2010 on the defendant's motions coded 476, 477 and 478, the court found that the amount due her from the plaintiff regarding the Charles Schwab brokerage account under the Memorandum of Decision filed by this court on March 17, 2008 was $1,404,337.26 as of August 31, 2009 plus $88,941.36 interest at the statutory rate of 8 percent on the $1,404,337.26 through July 2, 2010, for a total of $1,493,278.62.   This court has calculated interest at the statutory rate of 8 percent on the $1,404,337.26 from July 2, 2010 to March 1, 2011 in the amount of $74,795.40.   The combined total interest to March 1, 2011 is $163,736.76, for a total of $1,568,074.02.

The defendant has taken an appeal from that July 2, 2010 order regarding the Charles Schwab brokerage account.   As the result of that appeal, the order of the trial court regarding the $1,404,337.26 plus interest is stayed.   This court, therefore, will not sign a property execution for that amount.   The plaintiff claims that he has made payments on the July 2, 2010 order.   The court finds that that claim at best is not credible.   No such payments have been made.

The defendant then seeks an execution for an order that she claims was entered on December 8, 2010 regarding her motion coded 530 regarding alimony.   The court finds that the correct date of the order that was entered by this court regarding the defendant's motion coded 530 was November 23, 2010, not December 8, 2010.   This court found that the alimony arrearage as of November 23, 2010 was $123,983.70 and ordered interest on that amount at the rate of 8 percent per annum.   Interest from November 23, 2010 to March 1, 2011 amounts to $2,689.83, for a total of $126,673.53.   This court also ordered on November 23, 2010 that the plaintiff post a cash security bond for one year's alimony in the amount of $156,000 which he has failed to do.   The claim of the plaintiff that he has made payments on the alimony arrearage at best is not credible.   No such payments have been made.

The defendant also seeks an execution as the result of an order entered by this court on her motion coded 531.   This court, on December 7, 2010, found that the plaintiff was in contempt and ordered that the prior requirement for the defendant to transfer to the plaintiff half of her 401k plan plus half of her pension plan was eliminated.   This court further found that the amount at the time of dissolution in her 401k plan was $330,188.70 and the amount in her pension plan at the time of dissolution was $71,754.07.   This court further found that the amount in the plaintiff's Schwab IRA was $1,042,886.   In deducting the defendant's 401k plan and pension plan from the plaintiff's Schwab IRA that left a balance of $640,944, of which the defendant was entitled to one-half or $320,472.   This court also ordered that the $320,472 amount be added to the existing capias.   This court ordered that interest on the $320,472 run at the rate of 8 percent per annum from March 17, 2008.   The interest on the $320,472 at the rate of 8 percent per annum from March 17, 2008 to March 1, 2011 amounts to $75,929.44, for a total of $396,401.44.   Once again, the claim of the plaintiff that he has made payment on that liability at best is not credible.   No such payments have been made.

The defendant also seeks an execution on an order entered by this court on December 8, 2010 on her motion coded 529.   This court awarded to the defendant her attorneys fee bill in the amount of $4,282 as the result of the plaintiff's fraud in forging signatures plus interest in the amount of $9,300 for a total of $13,582.   The interest was for the period of March 23, 2010 to October 18, 2010.   Once again, the claim of the plaintiff that he has made any payment on that debt is best characterized as not being credible.   No such payments have been made.

Finally, the defendant seeks a property execution regarding her motion coded 541 which this court heard on December 8, 2010.   This court again found the plaintiff in contempt and ordered him to pay to the defendant $12,500 plus interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from September 1, 2009 to December 8, 2010.   This court has calculated the interest on the $12,500 at the rate of 8 percent per annum from September 1, 2009 to March 1, 2011 to be in the amount of $1,498.78, for a total of $13,998.78.   Once again, the claim of the plaintiff's that he has made any payment on that debt can best be classified as being factually inaccurate.   No such payments have been made.

This court orders that insofar as the motions coded 530, 531, 529, and 541 that separate executions be filed by the defendant for the amounts found to be due on each of those motions.   In each instance the applications for execution should show as the date of judgment either November 23, 2010, December 7, 2010 or December 8, 2010.   The amount of the judgment should be the amount shown in this Memorandum of Decision.   Block 5 in the application for execution should be filled out showing the total amount unpaid.

The court, in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure § 61–11(c) sua sponte, orders that the automatic stay be terminated.

Sidney Axelrod, Judge Trial Referee

Axelrod, Sidney, J.T.R.