Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph Wiszniak v. Maryann Wiszniak
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This action for dissolution of marriage and other relief was brought to this court on March 23, 2010. This case was tried to the court on March 8, 2011 and March 9, 2011.
The court listened to and observed the witnesses and reviewed the exhibits. In addition, the court carefully considered the criteria set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders below.
The court finds the following facts. The parties were married on June 13, 1981 in New Britain, Connecticut. One party has resided continuously in the state of Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to the commencement of this action. The Court has jurisdiction. Two children were born issue of the marriage, both of whom are under the age of eighteen, to wit:
Sarah K. Wiszniak DOB 10/23/1995.
Michael J. Wiszniak DOB 10/03/1999.
The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably. Based upon the testimony, the court determines that the defendant was more responsible than the plaintiff in causing the breakdown of the marriage by virtue of her online relationship with other men.
The defendant was employed as a dental assistant at the University of Connecticut Dental School. Effective July 1, 2008, she retired under a nonservice connected disability. She receives a gross monthly award of $2,700.11 and a net pay of $2,242.31. The defendant will receive a cost of living adjustment every July 1st. The benefit is available for her lifetime. The defendant also receives health insurance. (Exhibit A.) The testimony was that the retirement was based upon a work-related knee injury which resulted in a seven percent permanent disability. The plaintiff is designated as the survivor beneficiary. The plaintiff was an insurance agent until 2005. At that time he gave up his business to participate in a multilevel marketing scheme which was unsuccessful. The plaintiff is currently a substitute teacher and is again selling insurance. The court finds that the plaintiff has an earning capacity of between $35,000 and $40,000 a year. (Exhibit 3.) The plaintiff was receiving an annual lottery payment which ended in February of 2011.
Each party has an interest in a parent's home. The parties agree that those interests can remain. The marital home has a value of $225,000. The first mortgage and home equity line of credit have balances totaling approximately $152,000. The remaining assets consist of the plaintiff's retirement accounts, cash value in life insurance policies, Webster Bank stock and bank account balances.
In dividing the assets the court has considered the fact, that while the defendant's pension is in pay status, it is also of considerable value.
ORDERS
Based on the foregoing, the court orders the following:
1. The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the basis of irretrievable breakdown.
2. The custody of the party's two minor children shall be in accordance with the parenting agreement dated December 2, 2010, attached hereto as exhibit A.*
3. Neither party shall receive alimony from the other.
4. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $139 per week as child support, in accordance with the child support guidelines attached hereto as exhibit B.* In addition, she shall be responsible for 30% of the unreimbursed medical expenses of the minor children and the plaintiff 70%.
5. Each party shall be responsible for their own debts and hold the other harmless therefrom.
6. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees.
7. Each party shall be responsible for their own health insurance. The defendant shall continue to provide health insurance for the minor children as made available to her by the State of Connecticut for so long as they are eligible. The provisions of C.G.S. § 46b–84(e) are incorporated herein.
8. Each party shall retain their own automobiles.
9. Each party shall retain the personal property currently in their own possession except that the defendant shall be entitled to retrieve those items which were originally property of her mother or grandmother, the Lane hope chest and contents, the silver motives suitcase and contents, all her makeup and makeup chair, any personal item, and one-half of the Hummels.
10. The plaintiff shall retain his Webster bank stock, the cash value of his life insurance policies, his deferred compensation plans, and the bank accounts at Webster bank and TDBank.
11. The defendant shall retain her pension. The plaintiff is to remain the joint survivor beneficiary of the pension whether or not she changes it to a regular pension upon any resolution of her disability. The defendant shall retain the cash value of her life insurance policy and her bank accounts at Farmington Savings Bank.
12. The plaintiff shall retain his interest in 46 Hutchinson Street, New Britain, Connecticut. The defendant shall retain her interest in 44 Clinton Street, New Britain, Connecticut.
13. The defendant shall forthwith covey all of her right, title and interest to the property know as 11 Sunrise Terrace, Plainville, Connecticut to the plaintiff and receive in exchange therefore the sum of $12,000. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the mortgages due thereon and hold the defendant harmless therefrom. The plaintiff shall use his best efforts to remove the defendant from liability on the mortgages and if he is unable to do so within seven years from the date of judgment sell the property.
14. Both parties shall maintain the current life insurance policies naming the minor children as beneficiaries. The parties shall exchange of evidence of such annually.
15. The court shall retain jurisdiction over educational support orders pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b–56c.
16. The parties shall each claim one child as a dependent for state and federal tax purposes. When there is only one eligible dependent, the parties shall alternate, with the plaintiff having even years and the defendant odd years.
Pinkus,J.
*[Editors Note: The referenced Exhibits A and B have not been reproduced.]
Pinkus, Barry C., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: HHBFA104023450S
Decided: March 10, 2011
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)