Mary V. Cunningham v. Gerard Cunningham (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff wife (“wife”) whose name was Mary Pat Van Deventer and the defendant husband (“Husband”) were married in Middletown, Rhode Island, on April 8, 1989.   It was a first marriage for each.   Two children were born to the wife, issue of the marriage, to wit:  Kimberly B. Cunningham, born May 17, 1991, and Christine M. Cunningham, born March 22, 1993.   Kimberly is a student at Colby College, and Christine is a senior at Rye Country Day and has been accepted at Williams College for the 2011–2012 academic year.   Both children are in good health.   The husband currently resides at the marital residence at 69 Winding Brook Lane, Stamford, Connecticut, while the wife, who moved out shortly after filing this action in 2009, resides in a rental property at 94 Barnes Road, Stamford, Connecticut.   She would like to purchase that property.   The parties entered into a Joint Custody and Parenting Plan (# 117.00) dated March 3, 2010.   Both children spend approximately equal time with each parent.   This is the third time that the wife has filed for dissolution of marriage, the two previous ones having been withdrawn.   The parties have tried counseling without success.

The husband is 55 years old and described his health as good.   He has a bachelor's degree and a masters degree from Southern Methodist University, and he has been fully employed since graduation.   Commencing in 1984, and throughout the marriage, the husband has been employed at what is now Deloitte Consulting, LLC, where he is a principal (i.e. a non-CPA partner) in the consulting business.   He is required to retire at the end of the fiscal year in which he turns 62.   The husband receives a regular draw as well as quarterly distributions.   The husband brought to the marriage some savings and a modest retirement account.   At the time of the marriage, he owned a condominium in Byram, Connecticut, a car, some home furnishings, and a § 401(k) plan.   The evidence also demonstrates that he is the sole owner of a condominium near Dallas, Texas, with a value of $15,000.00, and that he received a small inheritance from his father in 1995, which he has always maintained in a segregated account.

The wife is 54 years old, and although she has had some health issues, including shingles and a fractured foot, also described her health as good.   She is a graduate of Stone Hill College.   Upon her graduation and throughout the course of the marriage, the wife has been employed as a flight attendant for Delta Airlines.   She has worked a full schedule for most of the marriage, with two maternity leaves of ten months each, and a furlough of one and one-half years following September 11, 2001.   At the time of the marriage, she owned a car, some furniture, and a § 401(k) plan with a modest balance.   In addition, she carried some credit card debt.

At the time of the marriage, the parties lived in the Byram condominium, however, this was sold in 1990 and the proceeds invested in the marital home at 69 Winding Brook Lane in Stamford.   During the course of the marriage, they made modest improvements to the property.   The parties agree that the market value of the property is $730,000.00, which value was substantiated by an appraisal (Exhibit # 2).   There is a mortgage in the approximate amount of $203,000.00, leaving an equity of $527,000.00.

In addition, the parties own a condominium at Hearthstone Lodge, Unit # 432, Stratton Mountain, Vermont.   The evidence disclosed that the property was used extensively by the family.   There is a dispute between the parties as to the current market value of same.   The husband contends that the property has a fair market value of $800,000.00 with a mortgage balance of approximately $480,000.00, leaving an equity of $320,000.00.   However, an appraisal conducted at the request of the husband (Exhibit # 4) found the value to be $828,000.00.   On the other hand, the wife contends that the property is worth $900,000.00 (Exhibit # 3) with a mortgage balance of $483,000.00, leaving an equity of $417,000.00.   She has asked the court to order a sale.   The husband would like to keep title to the unit.

During the course of the marriage, the parties have enjoyed a very comfortable lifestyle, which included extensive travel, yard maintenance, and in-home help, and they have amassed a substantial estate.   They are members of the Roton Point Association, which has a value of approximately $140,000.00.   The principal non-realty assets include a sizeable investment account having an approximate value of $1,460,000.00, as well as a deferred income account and several retirement vehicles in either name.   The largest of these is the husband's Deloitte Capital Account with a net balance after loans of approximately $1,146,000.00.   Throughout the marriage, the husband has made substantial gifts of jewelry to the wife, for which he claims he paid $100,000.00.   For her part, the wife does not dispute the fact that she has the jewelry, however, she claims the value thereof is about one-half the husband's claim.

The husband seeks to have the wife designate him as a “companion” so that he can take advantage of her employment perk of discounted airfare in the future.   He has chosen to make this a larger issue than the court is prepared to.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties offered a Stipulation re Irretrievable Breakdown and Fault, as well as a Stipulation re Capital Account, both dated December 8, 2010.   The parties asked that the latter be incorporated by reference in the decree.   At the close of the evidence on December 10, 2010, the parties asked the court to defer judgment dissolving the marriage until after the start of the new year, so as to give them the option to file joint income tax returns for the year 2010.   Each party has incurred well over $100,000.00 in attorneys fees to date.

The court heard from the parties over the course of three days, including final argument.   At that time, the parties represented that the husband had received a distribution in December and that there had been some withdrawals from the savings, the court gave the parties two weeks to file updated financial affidavits, and indicated that it would close the evidence on January 19, 2011.

FINDINGS

The Court, having heard the testimony of both parties, and having considered the evidence presented at hearing, as well as, inter alia, the factors enumerated in General Statutes § 46b–56, 46b–56a, 46b–56c, 46b–81, 46b–82, 46b–84, and 46b–215a, including the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines Regulations, hereby makes the following findings:

1. That it has jurisdiction.

2. That the allegations of the Amended Complaint are proven and are true.

3. That the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably based upon a Stipulation dated December 8, 2010 as on file with the court.

4. That during the marriage, neither party has received any aid or assistance from the State of Connecticut or any town or political subdivision thereof.

5. That the parties have entered into a certain “Joint Custody and Parenting Plan” dated March 3, 2010, as on file with the court (# 117.00) and previously made an order thereof on March 3, 2010, which the court now finds to be fair and equitable under all the circumstances and in the best interest of the minor children.  General Statutes § 46b–56a(b);  Stahl v. Bayliss, 98 Conn.App. 63, 69–70 (2006), cert. den., 280 Conn. 945 (2006).

6. That the court having considered the factors set forth in General Statutes § 46b–56c(c), that both children are under the age of twenty-three years;  that the evidence supports a finding that it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to each of the children for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact, in that Kimberly is already a student at Colby College, that Christine has been accepted at Williams College for the upcoming academic year, and that throughout the marriage, the parties have made provision for the college education of the children in the form of contributions to several Section 529 plans, and in that the husband has asked the court to reserve jurisdiction to enter an appropriate educational support order.

7. That throughout the marriage, until their separation, both parties have each made significant contributions to the acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of the family assets, including the real estate.

8. That the Court finds that each party has sufficient liquid assets and each party shall be responsible for their respective attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.  Maguire v. Maguire, 222 Conn. 32 (1992).

9. That where time-limited alimony is awarded, there must be “sufficient evidence to support” the court's finding that it is appropriate.  Wolfburg v. Wolfburg, 27 Conn.App. 396, 399 (1992);  and that taking into consideration the factors set forth in General Statutes § 46b–82, including the age, health, education, earnings, and work experience of the wife, as well as the division of assets, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, a time-limited award of alimony is appropriate.  Ippolito v. Ippolito, 28 Conn.App. 745, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 905 (1992);  Milbauer v. Milbauer, 54 Conn.App. 304, 312–15 (1999).

10. That based upon the financial affidavits of the parties, the net monthly income of the husband is $62,629.00 ($14,453.00 per week);  and that the net monthly income of the wife is $1,574.51 ($363.00 per week).

11. That alimony and child support orders must be based upon the net income of the parties.  Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299, 306 (2003);  Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355, 358 (2001).

12. That the combined net weekly income of the parties is in excess of the maximum Child Support Guidelines amount;  that the presumptive basic child support is $473.00 per week;  and that the husband's share is $461.00 per week.

13. That the Court finds it is appropriate and equitable to apply the deviation criteria set forth in § 46b–215a–3(b)(5) of the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines Regulations on the basis of the coordination of total family support.

14. That the evidence supports a finding that the parties have consistently filed joint federal income tax returns during their marriage;  and that at the time of trial each party stipulated that it was their intention to file a joint income tax return for the year 2010.   Kane v. Parry, Conn.App. 307, 315 (1991);  cert. granted, appeal dismissed, 226 Conn. 817, 818 (1993).

15. That under all the circumstances, the evidence (Exhibit F) supports a finding that the Deloitte Non–Qualified, Non–Funded Plan (a/k/a “MOA”) is a marital asset and subject to equitable distribution pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–81;  and that a present division of same is appropriate.   Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733, 753–54, and 760 (2001).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The marriage of the parties is hereby dissolved, and they are each hereby declared to be single and unmarried.

2. The parties shall have joint custody of the minor child Christine, and each shall be entitled to parenting time consistent with a certain “Joint Custody and Parenting Plan” dated March 3, 2010, as on file with the court (# 117.00), which the court hereby incorporates by reference herein as “Schedule A,” * and to which further reference may be had.

3. Commencing February 1, 2011 and monthly thereafter, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $20,000.00 as and for periodic alimony, until the death of either party, the remarriage of the wife, the entry into a civil union by the wife, or January 31, 2018, whichever shall sooner occur.   It is the intention of the court that, except for the foregoing, that the term of periodic alimony shall be non-modifiable by either party.   It is the further intention of this court that, except as set forth above, the amount of alimony shall be non-modifiable by the husband where the sole basis for the modification is the annual gross earnings of the wife of $36,000.00 or less.

4. Commencing February 1, 2011, and monthly thereafter, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $2,000.00 as and for child support, until such time as the child shall reach the age of eighteen years or shall be otherwise emancipated.   The foregoing notwithstanding, if the child shall turn eighteen years old and is still in high school, then, in that event, the child support shall continue until the first day of next month following graduation from high school or her nineteenth birthday, whichever shall sooner occur, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–84(b).

5. As to the jointly-owned real estate at 69 Winding Brook Lane, Stamford, Connecticut, within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, the wife shall convey her interest therein to the husband by means of a fully-executed Quit Claim Deed along with completed Conveyance Tax Forms.   Hereafter, the husband shall have exclusive possession of the real estate and shall be responsible for the payment of all mortgages, liens, taxes, and insurance, and shall indemnify and hold the wife harmless from any further liability thereunder.

6. As to the jointly-owned real estate known as Hearthstone Lodge, Unit # 432, Stratton, Vermont, within forty-five (45) days from the date hereof, the wife shall convey her interest therein to the husband by means of a fully-executed Quit Claim Deed along with completed Conveyance Tax Forms.   Thereafter, the husband shall have exclusive possession of the real estate and shall be responsible for the payment of all mortgages, liens, taxes, and insurance, and shall indemnify and hold the wife harmless from any further liability thereunder.   The court shall retain jurisdiction with regard to any issue which may arise in connection therewith.

7. The husband shall retain title to the real property located at 6646 Lover's Lane, Unit # 1505, Dallas, Texas, together with any buildings and improvements thereon, subject to any existing mortgage or other indebtedness, free and clear of any further claims by the wife.   The husband shall indemnify and hold the wife harmless from any liability arising out of any such mortgage or indebtedness.

8. As to the jointly-owned interest in the Roton Point Association, (a/k/a Unit # 101, Pine Point Road, Rowayton, Connecticut) within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, the husband shall convey his interest therein to the wife.   Thereafter, the wife shall have an exclusive ownership of the interest therein, and she shall be responsible for the payment of all mortgages, liens, taxes, assessments, and insurance, and shall indemnify and hold the husband harmless from any further liability thereunder.   Any bond associated therewith, shall belong solely to the wife.   The husband shall fully cooperate in the transfer.   The court shall retain jurisdiction with regard to any issue which may arise in connection therewith.

9. Personal property shall be divided as follows:

A. The home furnishings and personal property have been inventoried and listed by the parties on Exhibit 5. The wife has removed and has in her possession certain items marked thereon with an asterisk, and she shall be entitled to retain same, along with all other items which have been noted thereon to be in her possession, free and clear of any further claims by the husband.   In addition, she has marked some additional items with an “O,” and she shall be entitled to possession of all of said items, including the “Marano” glass chandelier in the dining room, free and clear of any further claims by the husband, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF the “Ourshak” Turkish Entry Carpet in the Foyer, which shall belong to the husband free and clear of any further claims by the wife.   THE FOREGOING NOTWITHSTANDING:  (1) all family photographs shall be divided equally by the parties, and in the event of any dispute, the photograph, or photographs as the case may be, shall be duplicated and the parties shall share the cost of same;  (2) in the event that the wife exercises her right to remove the “Marano” chandelier, she shall replace same, at her sole expense (including the cost of an electrician), with a chandelier of the husband's choosing, having a value not to exceed $500.00 (Any costs over and above the cost of installation and $500.00, shall be borne by the husband);  and (3) in the event that the husband exercise his right to retain the “Ourshak” Turkish carpet, he shall pay to the wife the sum of $7,200.00.

B. Each party shall be entitled to keep the automobile which they are currently driving, subject to any existing liens, loans, or leases, free and clear of any claims by the other, and each party shall cooperate with the other regarding the execution of any documentation necessary to transfer and/or register same.   Specifically, the husband shall be entitled to the 2003 Volvo S80, and the 2005 BMW 325csi.   The wife shall be entitled to the 2009 Toyota Highlander.

C. Except as otherwise set forth herein, each party shall be entitled to keep their respective savings, checking, and money market accounts free and clear of any claims by the other.   Specifically, the wife shall retain her Chase checking account and her Delta Credit Union checking and savings accounts.   The husband shall retain his Chase checking and savings accounts.   The foregoing notwithstanding, the Bank of America account as shown on the husband's Financial Affidavit dated January 19, 2011, having a balance in the amount of $57,199.00 as of January 18, 2011, shall be divided equally.

D. The husband shall retain the following items of property, free and clear of any claims by the wife:

1.  Clothing, and personal effects, including watches, rings, and other jewelry;

2.  TD Ameritrade Investment Account XXXX9540;  and

3.  Miscellaneous securities, including 43 shs.   AT & T, 44 shs.   ConEd, 4 shs.   Lucent/LSI, and U.S. Treasury Savings Bonds, shall remain the sole property of the husband, and the wife shall cooperate in the transfer of any interest therein.

E. The wife shall retain the following items of property, free and clear of any claims by the husband:

1.  Clothing, and personal effects, including watches, rings, and other jewelry;

2.  Security deposit for rental;

3.  Any cash value in the MetLife and Symetra Financial life insurance policies;  and

4.  Delta air passes (“Buddy” and “Companion”).

F. The joint property shall be divided as follows:

1.  The Stratton Mountain Club and the Stratton Mountain Sports Club memberships, including any bonds related thereto, shall become the sole property of the husband, and the wife shall cooperate in the transfer of any interest therein;

2.  TD Ameritrade Investment Account XXXX9510, 35% to the husband and 65% to the wife, and both parties shall cooperate in the execution of any necessary documentation;  and

3.  The joint Chase checking and savings accounts shall be divided equally, and both parties shall cooperate in the execution of any necessary documentation.

10. The deferred taxable income accumulated by the husband in his capital account as a result of his employment with Deloitte shall be divided pursuant to the Stipulation re Capital Account dated December 8, 2010 (attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as “Schedule B” *).

11. Pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–84(f), as and for security for his alimony and support obligations hereunder, the husband shall maintain a portion of the existing life insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and he shall name the wife and children beneficiaries thereof for so long as he has an obligation to pay alimony and child support under the terms of this decree.   In the event that his alimony obligation hereunder ceases, for whatever reason, he shall name each child as the beneficiary in the amount $250,000.00 thereof for so long as he has an obligation to pay child support to that child under the terms of this decree.   For purposes of the enforcement of this provision, a child support order shall include an educational support order pursuant to General Statutes § 46–56c or a written agreement of the parties for post-majority educational support.

12. Each party shall be responsible for obtaining and maintaining their own health insurance.   In addition, each party shall promptly notify his or her employer as to the change of marital status and shall cooperate with the other in obtaining continuation health insurance coverage, if such is available to either or both, as provided by state and federal law.   If either party elects such coverage, he or she, as the case may be, shall be responsible for the payment of any premiums due for same.

13. The husband shall maintain and pay for health insurance for each of the minor children so long as he shall be obligated to pay child support for that child, including post-majority support pursuant to an educational support order or a written post-majority agreement.   Unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, optical, pharmaceutical, psychiatric, and psychological expenses for the minor child, shall be divided by the parties, 75% by the husband and 25% by the wife.   The provisions of General Statutes § 46b–84(e) shall apply.

14. The Retirement Assets of the parties and the Deloitte Capital Account shall be divided as follows, and the court shall reserve jurisdiction with regard to any issue that may arise regarding said division, including the preparation and filing of any QDRO or DRO necessary to implement same:

A. As to the Delta Defined Benefit Plan # XXXX:

The wife shall retain her interest in the Delta Defined Benefit Plan as shown on her financial affidavit, free and clear of any claims by the husband; ¹

B. As to the Delta Family Care Savings Plan (§ 401(k)):

The wife shall retain her interest in her Delta Family Care Savings Plan § 401(k) free and clear of any claims by the husband;

C. As to the Delta Retirement Plan (frozen):

The wife shall retain her interest in the frozen Delta Retirement Plan Pension free and clear of any claims by the husband; ²

D. As to the Delta Fidelity ESOP # XXXX20229:

The wife shall retain her interest in the Delta Fidelity ESOP free and clear of any claims by the husband;

E. As to the TD Ameritrade IRA # XXXX8000:

The wife shall retain her interest in her TD Ameritrade Individual Retirement Account free and clear of any claims by the husband;

F. As to the TD Ameritrade IRA # XXXX:

The husband shall retain his interest in his TD Ameritrade Individual Retirement Account as shown on his financial affidavit, free and clear of any claims by the wife.

G. As to the Deloitte Profit Sharing Plan (Vanguard):

Effective as of March 9, 2011, the then balance of the Deloitte Profit Sharing Plan (“Plan”) of the husband through his employer, together with any interest and/or additions accrued thereon as of the actual date of distribution, shall be divided by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) which shall be prepared by the attorney for the husband or at his direction, at his sole expense, 50% to the husband and 50% to the wife.   The wife and her attorney shall be entitled to any and all information regarding the Plan necessary to the review of the QDRO, including, but not limited to prior and current balances and prior account activity.   No withdrawals, distributions, or transfers shall be made regarding the Plan except as consistent with this order.   The Court shall retain jurisdiction to deal with any issues which may arise with regard to the preparation and filing of the QDRO and the division of the Plan.

H. As to the Deloitte § 401(k) Plan (Vanguard):

Effective as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision, the then balance of the Deloitte § 401(k) Plan (“Plan”) of the husband through his employer, together with any interest and/or additions accrued thereon as of the actual date of distribution, shall be divided by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) which shall be prepared by attorney for the husband or at his direction, at his sole expense, 75% to the husband and 25% to the wife.   The wife and her attorney shall be entitled to any and all information regarding the Plan necessary to the review of the QDRO, including, but not limited to prior and current balances and prior account activity.   No withdrawals, distributions, or transfers shall be made regarding the Plan except as consistent with this order.   The Court shall retain jurisdiction to deal with any issues which may arise with regard to the preparation and filing of the QDRO and the division of the Plan.

I. As to the Deloitte Partner Qualified Pension Plan (incl.  Employee Defined Benefit Plan:

Effective as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision, and subject to any adjustment for any payments received pursuant to the Deloitte Non–Qualified, Non–Funded Plan (a/k/a “MOA Plan” as provided therein), that portion of the husband's Deloitte Partner Qualified Pension Plan (“Plan”) through his employment and vested and accrued as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision, shall be divided by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) which shall be prepared by the husband's attorney or at his direction, at his sole expense, 50% to the husband and 50% to the wife.   Unless the parties shall otherwise agree, the husband shall elect a 50% joint and survivor annuity, so called, and in the event that the husband shall predecease the wife prior to drawing his pension, the wife shall be entitled to 100% of that portion of the survivor benefit vested and accrued as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision.   Any benefit vesting and accruing thereafter shall belong to the husband.   The foregoing notwithstanding, it is the intention of the court that for purposes of calculating the coverture period for either the retirement or survivor benefit, that the numerator of the fraction shall be equal to the length of time in whole months, beginning with the first day of the month in which the parties were married and ending on the last day of the month in which the marriage was dissolved, and that the denominator shall be equal to the length of time in whole months, beginning with the first day of the month in which the husband became a principal and ending with the last day of the month encompassing the date of his death or the date of his retirement, whichever shall sooner occur.   The wife and her attorney shall be entitled to any and all information regarding the Plan necessary for a review of the QDRO. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to deal with any issues which may arise with regard to the preparation and filing of the QDRO and the division of the Plan.

J. As to the Deloitte Non–Qualified, Non-funded Plan (a/k/a “MOA Plan”):

Effective as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision, that portion of the husband's Deloitte Partner Non–Qualified, Non–Funded Plan (a/k/a “MOA Plan”) (hereinafter “MOA”) through his employment and vested and accrued as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision, net after an adjustment for federal and state taxes in the event that the husband incurs any such tax on the portion distributed to the wife, shall be divided by means of a Domestic Relations Order (“DRO”) which shall be prepared by the husband's attorney or at his direction, at his sole expense, 50% to the husband and 50% to the wife.   Unless the parties shall otherwise agree, the husband shall elect a 50% joint and survivor annuity, so called, and in the event that the husband shall predecease the wife prior to drawing his pension, the wife shall be entitled to 100% of that portion of the survivor benefit vested and accrued as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision.   Any benefit vesting and accruing thereafter shall belong to the husband.   The foregoing notwithstanding, it is the intention of the court that for purposes of calculating the coverture period for either the retirement or survivor benefit, that the numerator of the fraction shall be equal to the length of time in whole months, beginning with the first day of the month in which the parties were married and ending on the last day of the month in which the marriage was dissolved, and that the denominator shall be equal to the length of time in whole months, beginning with the first day of the month in which the husband became a principal and ending with the last day of the month encompassing the date of his death or the date of his retirement, whichever shall sooner occur.   The wife and her attorney shall be entitled to any and all information regarding the MOA necessary for a review of the DRO. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to deal with any issues which may arise with regard to the preparation and filing of the DRO and the division of the MOA.³

15. The parties shall file joint state and federal income tax returns for the year 2010.   Each party shall cooperate with the other in providing the necessary information and in the signing and filing of same.   Any tax due (including any taxes and penalties) shall be paid in the same proportion as the respective incomes of each.   Any refund due shall be divided equally.   The cost of the preparation and filing shall be borne by the husband.

16. The wife shall be entitled to claim the personal exemption for each of the children, so long as it is available to her, commencing with the tax year 2011 and thereafter.

17. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the parties shall each be responsible for the debts as shown on their respective financial affidavits, and they shall indemnify and hold each other harmless from any further liability thereon.

18. The parties shall file joint federal and state income tax returns for the year 2010.   Any refund shall be shared equally, and any tax due (including any interest or penalty) shall be paid by the respective parties in the same proportion as their incomes from employment bear to the total income.   Each shall fully cooperate with the other, including the signing and filing of the final returns, and with regard to the provision of any and all documents necessary to prepare and file same.   The court will reserve jurisdiction regarding any issues that may arise concerning same.

19. Each party shall be responsible for their respective attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.

20. The court hereby reserves jurisdiction to enter an educational support order pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–56c.

21. The Court hereby orders a Contingent Wage Withholding Order pursuant to General Statutes § 52–362(b) in order to secure the payment of the financial orders.

21. There having been a contested hearing at which the financial orders were in dispute, the financial affidavits of the parties are hereby unsealed per P.B. § 25–59A(h).

Shay, J.

*Editor's Note:  The referenced Schedules have not been included with the reported opinion.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Neither party offered any evidence as to the present value of the plan and the husband has made no claim of any interest therein..  FN1. Neither party offered any evidence as to the present value of the plan and the husband has made no claim of any interest therein.

FN2. Neither party offered any evidence as to the present value of the plan and the husband has made no claim of any interest therein..  FN2. Neither party offered any evidence as to the present value of the plan and the husband has made no claim of any interest therein.

FN3. Neither party offered any evidence as to the present value of this retirement benefit, however, each has offered a proposed distribution of this marital asset, if, as and when it is paid..  FN3. Neither party offered any evidence as to the present value of this retirement benefit, however, each has offered a proposed distribution of this marital asset, if, as and when it is paid.

Shay, Michael E., J.