Robin Shinn v. Joseph Materek (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Plaintiff brought this dissolution of marriage action before the court by writ, summons and complaint, returnable to the court on August 3, 2010.   The defendant, in turn, filed an action seeking dissolution of the parties' marriage with a return date of August 31, 2010, which was eventually consolidated with this action.   On March 25, 2011, a trial was held before the court.

In rendering this decision and making the ensuing orders, the court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b–81 and 46b–82 regarding the assignment of the marital estate and alimony, respectively, the case law as it has developed regarding these matters, and other relevant federal and state laws regarding the issues before the court.   The court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the parties at the time of trial.

The court makes the following findings:

1) The parties were married on July 4, 2007 in Middletown, Connecticut.

2) The plaintiff resided in the State of Connecticut for more than one year prior to the commencement of the action and the court has jurisdiction.

3) The marriage produced no children.

4) The plaintiff is not currently pregnant.

5) The court finds that the allegations of the complaint are proven in truth.   The marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably.   There is no hope for reconciliation of the parties to their marriage.

There are essentially no marital assets as it appears that the parties chose not to combine their finances during their marriage.   Plaintiff owns two operable vehicles, a 2003 Nissan Xterra and a 1995 GMC van, which defendant drives.   In addition, she owns a 1998 Chevrolet Lumina that is in defendant's possession, which is currently unregistered and uninsurable absent significant work, the title being marked “salvage.”   Plaintiff has little in the way of debt, with the exception of a credit union loan in the amount of $10,000.00.   She owns the marital residence and another property, neither of which evidence significant equity.   She nets $951.90 per week as a supervisor at St. Mary's Home in West Hartford.   She also owns one-half interest in three limited liability companies, none of which appear to have more than de minimis value.   Defendant's situation is far bleaker.   He is unemployed and currently homeless, having voluntarily vacated the marital residence some time ago.   He receives $103.00 in weekly aid through SAGA and food stamps.

Defendant seeks one-time, lump sum alimony in the amount of $2,500.00.   He asks that plaintiff pay an electric bill in the amount of $489.00 and a Dish Network bill in the amount of $154.00.   He also asks that plaintiff transfer him ownership of the GMC van and the Chevrolet Lumina.   Plaintiff seeks return of the following items that she claims defendant took from the marital residence:  computer, snowblower, part of an oak bedroom set, dishes and utensils and a lawnmower.

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing, the court orders the following:

1.  A decree dissolving the marriage, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, shall enter.

2. Plaintiff shall pay defendant a one-time $2,500.00 alimony payment, non-modifiable as to amount or term.

3. Each party shall be responsible for his or her own medical insurance.

4. The parties shall each pay their own liabilities unless otherwise provided in these orders.

5. Plaintiff shall be the sole owner of the respective home furnishings, personal effects and jewelry, presently in her physical custody.

8. Plaintiff shall sign over ownership of the GMC van to defendant.   Defendant shall return the Chevrolet Lumina to plaintiff.

9. Defendant shall return to plaintiff the portion of the oak bedroom set that he removed from the marital residence, together with the snowblower and lawnmower, to the extent that the foregoing items remain in his possession and control.

10. The court declines to order either party to reimburse the other for any additional claimed losses or expenses.

11. There having been a contested hearing, the financial affidavits are hereby ordered unsealed.

James W. Abrams, Judge

Abrams, James W., J.