Irene Feher v. Laszlo Feher (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RENDERING JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff (hereafter, sometimes referred to as the Wife) filed a Complaint in this court on September 11, 2008, for dissolution of her marriage to the Defendant (hereafter, sometimes referred to as the Husband).   The Return Date was September 23, 2008.   The Husband appeared through counsel on October 23, 2008.   The Wife sought dissolution of the marriage, an equitable division of property and debts, and restoration of her birth name.   The Husband filed an Answer and Cross–Complaint on April 6, 2009, seeking dissolution of the marriage, alimony, an equitable division of the marital estate, an equitable distribution of the marital debts, medical insurance, and counsel fees.   After status conferences, pre-trials, mediations, special master's conferences, and pendente lite hearings, none of which were successful, the matter was continued and assigned to this trial court for a limited contested final hearing.

The Wife appeared at trial with counsel who represented her throughout.   The Husband appeared at trial with counsel who represented him throughout.   The hearing commenced September 21, 2010;  it continued on September 22, September 23, November 12, February 23, 2011, and concluded on March 9, 2011.   The Wife and Husband each testified.   The Wife called one other witness, Attorney Karen Fisher.   The Husband called one other witness, Thomas Strong.   Numerous exhibits were introduced by each of the parties.   The parties were each granted until March 30, 2011 to submit proposed findings of facts and written arguments in support of their claims for relief.   The Plaintiff's submission was filed on March 29, 2011.   The Defendant's submission was filed on March 30, 2011.

FINDINGS:

After hearing, and a careful review of the credible and relevant evidence offered during the trial, and a review of the judicially noticed court records, the court finds the following:

The Plaintiff resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for at least 12 consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint.   She was married to the Defendant by her birth name of Irene Csato on December 10, 2000, in New Haven, Connecticut.   The Wife has not given birth to any child that is issue of the marriage.   There is no reasonable hope of reconciliation.   The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably.   The State of Connecticut has not contributed any financial assistance for the support or maintenance of either party.   The State of Connecticut did not appear in this case.   The allegations of the Complaint are found to be true.   This court has jurisdiction over the marriage of the parties.

The parties met in Hungary in 1998.   They have been married to each other for ten years.   This is the Wife's third marriage and the Husband's first marriage.   He has no children.   She has an adult daughter from a prior marriage.   Before marrying they resided with his parents.   In the sixth year of their marriage the Husband abandoned the marital home.   They have continuously lived apart since then.

The Wife is Hungarian.   She came to the United States in 1998 and has become a U.S. citizen.   She is 55 years of age.   She completed high school and 4 years of college.   She has a bachelor's degree in nursing and is a licensed registered nurse.   Although she has no major health issue, she does have binaural hearing loss and the condition is worsening.   She wears a hearing aid in each ear.   The hearing loss does not affect her ability to work.   She is employed full-time as an RN in healthcare by the Visiting Nurses Association.   Her average gross weekly income is $996 and $694 net.   She has health insurance.

The Husband is also Hungarian.   He has dual Hungarian and United States citizenship.   He is 53 years of age and is in good health.   He completed high school and four years of college.   He has a bachelor's degree in Graphic Design.   He worked for the Strong Cohen Company as a graphic designer from 1998 to 2006.   During the six years they resided together his average annual income was $7,775.   He resigned from the Strong Cohen Company in 2006 to care for his mother.   After she died on September 28, 2008, he was re-employed in 2009 by the company as an independent contractor.   His employment, as an independent contractor with the Strong Cohen Company, was ended by the company in 2009, for budget reasons.   When the trial commenced on September 21, 2010, he was employed part-time at Orchard House as a temporary maintenance man and driver for East Shore Regional Adult Day Care. His gross weekly income was $180 and $166 net.   During the pendency of the trial he applied for employment with Ives Livery Service.   Ives Livery Service has notified him that, pending the results of his tests for substance abuse, he will be hired full-time as a driver at an annual income of $48,000 to $60,000.   Based on an annual income of that amount, his average gross monthly income will be $4,000 to $5,000 or $923 or $1,154 gross per week with a net weekly income of approximately $665 to $830.   He has also been offered full-time employment in Hamden, CT with Star Limo Service.   He has no health insurance.

The Husband's parents are Hungarian.   In 1998, the Defendant and his parents vacationed in Hungary.   His mother had been diagnosed with dementia.   The Plaintiff, who lived and worked in Hungary as a licensed nurse, was hired by the Defendant's father to treat and care for his mother.   While being cared for by the Plaintiff his mother improved.   Also, a romantic interest developed between the Plaintiff and Defendant.

After the Defendant and his parents returned to the US, his father invited the Plaintiff to come to the U.S. to continue treating and caring for the Defendant's mother.   The Plaintiff accepted the invitation and came to Connecticut in 1999.   She resided in the home of the Defendant and his parents.   At the time she was still married to her former Husband and had an adult daughter, Szuszanna.   In 2000, she brought Szuszanna to live with her in the Fehers' home.   While living in the Fehers' home, the Plaintiff and Defendant became romantically and sexually involved.   The Defendant's father asked them to leave his home.   The Plaintiff and Szuszanna moved out.   The Defendant moved in with the Plaintiff and Szuszanna moved into a separate residence.

The Plaintiff returned to Hungary;  finalized her divorce;  and the parties were married in New Haven, Connecticut on December 10, 2000.   The Husband's father died in June 2001.   In October 2001, the Defendant was appointed as the executor of his father's estate.   His mother was determined to be incapable and incompetent and he was also appointed as the conservator of her person and estate.

In 2002, the Husband purchased the marital home at 5 Lisa Drive in Oxford, CT. He purchased it in his sole name.   The property required extensive renovations, repairs and improvements.   In November 2003, he quitclaimed the property to himself and the Wife as joint tenants.   The renovations, repairs and improvements were commenced jointly by them in 2001 (prior to its purchase), and continued through June 2006.   Both parties substantially contributed, during this period, to the costs of and making the renovations, repairs, improvements;  and payment of the mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance;  and the property's appreciation in value.

On April 6, 2005, the Husband sold his parent's home in New Haven for $222,500.   Upon selling the home he gave away many items, including some of his parents' furniture, clocks and memorabilia.   Some his parent's household furnishings, appliances and furniture were discarded by him;  and some his parent's household furnishings and furniture were retained, removed, and placed in his and the Plaintiff's marital home in Oxford.

The Husband saw his parents' Chippendale sofa, some large wood carved furnishings, and other furniture that belonged to his parents depicted in photographs, dated November 20, 2007.   The items depicted were situated in the home of their mutual acquaintance, Joseph Vargas.   The Wife contended that the Husband gave the items depicted to Mr. Vargas.   The Husband denied that he gave the items to Mr. Vargas and accused the Wife of selling or giving them to him.   She denied that she gave or sold any of the items to Mr. Vargas.   Neither party called Mr. Vargas as a witness;  produced any evidence as to how he came into possession of the Chippendale sofa, wood furnishings, and other furniture, or even inquired of him how the items depicted in the photograph, taken in his home, came to be situated in his home.

In late 2005, the Defendant planned to permanently relocate his mother to Hungary.   Her estate consisted of her inheritance from his father, income from a small Hungarian pension of approximately $200 per month, her monthly social security payments and a Yale University pension totaling approximately $1,600 per month, and the net proceeds from the sale of her New Haven home.   The pension payments and the social security payments were deposited directly into the parties' joint account at the New Alliance Bank. On April 6, 2005, the Probate Court approved the Husband's final accounting for his mother's estate and concluded the conservatorship.   The estate's total value was reported to be $167,550.

In May 2006, the Wife went to Hungary to prepare a home purchased by her daughter, Szuszanna for use by the Husband's mother, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant.   The Defendant provided funds from his mother's estate to make the home livable.   The Wife readied the home for their use and returned to Connecticut in June 2006.On July 1, 2006 the three of them went to Hungary and stayed in Szuszanna's home.   The Husband obtained appointment in Hungary as conservator for his mother.   In October 2006, the Wife returned to Connecticut (without the Husband) and returned to work.   He remained in Hungary with his mother and unemployed.   They have not lived together since then.   He did not return to the U.S. until after the Wife had filed for divorce.

Before leaving for Hungary in July 2006, the Wife cooperated with the Husband to jointly purchase a Pontoon boat in her sole name for $24,500.   A motor for the boat was also purchased for an unspecified additional sum.   The Husband envisioned using it for a tourist business enterprise, which he intended to establish in Hungary.   Subsequently, they discovered that the tariffs and fees to transport the boat from the U.S. to Hungary were prohibitive.   They agreed to sell the boat and it was sold by the Wife in 2007.   She received and retained the sale proceeds of $12,000.   The court cannot conclude from the evidence presented whether the motor was sold with the boat for $12,000 or was sold separately for an additional amount.   They also purchased a 1999 Dodge Intrepid automobile before going to Hungary in July 2006.   It was purchased in the Wife's sole name.   The Husband provided the down payment and arranged for the balance to be financed through the Wife's Sikorsky Credit Union account.   The automobile was shipped to Hungary.   It was intended to be used there as a family car.   They filled it with possessions and shipped it to Hungary for their use in Hungary.

After the parties went to Hungary in July 2006, the Husband's mother's social security and Yale University pension payments continued to be deposited directly into their joint account at the New Alliance Bank until July 2008.   The Husband did not have access to these funds while he was in Hungary.   After returning to Connecticut in October 2006, the Wife periodically accessed the funds.   She initially sent cash to him, as was instructed by him, and later she forwarded money to him via wire transfers for his and his mother's support.

After returning to Connecticut in October 2006, the Wife bore the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the marital home, payment of the mortgage, taxes, and insurance, the Husband's credit card debts;  and for paying all of their joint expenses.   During this time he was unemployed and made no contribution to the Wife towards their debts.   She was unable financially to pay the household expenses and their debts with only her income and $400 per month given to her by her daughter.   Notwithstanding repeated entreaties from the Wife, he declined to return to the US, get a job and assist her.   Eventually she discontinued making payments on his credit cards, and used the funds from the sale of the Pontoon boat, and monies deposited into their joint account at the New Alliance Bank to help pay for the household expenses, maintenance and debts.

She repeatedly explained to the Husband (who was still in Hungary) that she was having trouble financially and implored him to help her pay the debts.   They agreed in the summer of 2007 that she should refinance the mortgage on the marital home for a lower interest rate which would reduce the monthly payments and to pay debts.   On August 27, 2007, he quitclaimed his interest to the Wife. He made her the sole owner of the property for the purpose of facilitating her ability to refinance it and pay off the mortgage that existed in his sole name.   The court does not find (as was averred by the Wife) on the evidence presented, that the Husband intended to quitclaim his interests to her and abandon his share of the equity in the property in order to be relieved of liability on the existing mortgage and for no other consideration.   Although he no longer held a legal title interest in the marital home subsequent to August 27, 2007, he continued to possess an equity interest.   Each of their interests was, and continued to constitute, a marital asset subject to division by this court.

The refinance loan was consummated on August 27, 2007 for $207,000.   It provided no net cash to the Wife. The refinance loan proceeds were utilized to pay some debts in full, bring some past due debts current, and reduce the current balance due on other debts and lower monthly payments.   The interest rate however, remained the same at 6.5 percent.   To the extent that she paid down debts, satisfied arrearages and lowered monthly payments, the August 27, 2007, refinance loan provided her with significant financial relief.   She has continued to maintain the marital home and solely pay the mortgage, taxes and all expenses associated with it since August 27, 2007.   The Husband's equity interest ceased to accrue as of August 27, 2007.   With much consideration given to the fact that the Wife assumed the full liability for the then existing mortgage of $194,000 and relieved him of all liability on same, the court concludes that as of August 27, 2007, the Husband had a substantial equity interest in the marital home.

Without the Husband's consent or knowledge, the Wife quitclaimed the marital home on November 27, 2007.   She quitclaimed it to herself and daughter Szuszanna, as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, for the nominal consideration of one ($1.00) dollar.   She did this to ensure that upon her death Szuszanna would receive her title interest in the property.   Upon discovering that the Wife had quitclaimed the property to herself and Szuszanna, the Husband alleged that she had lied to, and defrauded, him in the summer of 2007, by telling him that she wanted to refinance the home to get a lower interest rate to get financial relief and that he had to quitclaim it to her for her to refinance it.   He filed an action alleging fraudulent conveyance in the Milford Superior Court against the Wife and Szuszanna in 2009.   He withdrew the action on September 20, 2010, one day before the trial of this dissolution action began.   The court does not find that the Wife intentionally or knowingly made any false or misleading statements to the Husband.   The court does not find that the Wife knowingly made any statement to the Husband with the intent that he rely upon it to his detriment.   The court does find that the Wife was received significant and substantial financial relief via the refinance loan.   The court does conclude that the Wife's sole purpose in quitclaiming the marital home to Szuszanna as a joint tenant, was to ensure that upon her death Szuszanna would receive her title interest.   The court does find that the Wife's conveyance of the marital home to her and Szuszanna jointly was done subject to the Defendant's equity interest in the property.   The Husband's then existing equity interest in the marital home was not extinguished when the Wife quitclaimed the property to herself and Szuszana jointly.   The Husband's equity interest in the property continued to exist.

The Wife and Szuszanna refinanced the property again on April 6, 2009, for $240,000.   The interest rate again remained the same at 6.5 percent.   Neither the Wife nor Szuszanna received any significant cash back from the refinance loan.   With the loan proceeds the Wife paid off the loan on her vehicle, other debts and satisfied arrearages;  paid down the balance due on other debts;  and lowered monthly payments.   The refinance loan of April 2009 provided her with financial relief.   The April 2009, refinance transaction occurred after the Wife filed to dissolve the marriage and without the consent of the Defendant or the approval of the court.   The refinance transaction on April 6, 2009, occurred in violation of the Automatic Orders which the court had issued on September 4, 2008.

The marital residence has a current fair market value of $390,000.   It has a current mortgage balance of $223,930.   The marital home has a current equity value of $166,070.   The mortgage balance on April 6, 2009, was approximately $202,000 and the property had an equity value of approximately $188,888.   The only evidence before the court of the property's fair market value in August 2007 is its current fair market value of $390,000.   In August 27, 2007, the mortgage balance was $194,264;  it was refinanced for $207,000.   The court finds that the marital home had an equity value of $183,000 in August 2007.   The Husband's one-half share of the total equity value, as of August 27, 2007, was $91,500.

The Husband acknowledged having an extramarital affair, one year after marrying the Plaintiff, with a woman named Agnes Beluscsak, in 2001.   The Plaintiff initiated divorce proceedings, however they reconciled and the divorce action was withdrawn.   In the spring of 2008, the Husband removed himself and his mother from Szuszanna's home in Borsodivanka to Vaz (a suburb of Budapest) in Hungary.   A woman named Edina Barna helped him relocate and move into the housing complex where she resided.   He did not tell the Wife that he was moving and he neglected to maintain contact with her.   He neglected to respond to messages she left for him and she had no idea where he was.   Upon discovering that he had moved into the complex where Ms. Barna resided, she suspected that he was again having an affair.   In July 2008, she flew to Hungary.   She filed a complaint with the Hungarian police accusing the Husband of wrongfully removing contents from Szuszanna's home in Borsodivanka and stealing their 1999 Dodge Intrepid automobile.   She also discovered numerous photos on “Facebook” of the Defendant and Ms Barna together.   Some of the photos depicted him with his arms around Ms. Barna and some photos depicted him kissing Ms. Barna on the face.   The husband claimed that the pictures were a “set up” and that Ms. Barna had the pictures taken and posted as a “joke” that she was playing on the Wife. The Wife believed that he had become sexually or romantically involved with Ms. Barna and filed this action for divorce.   On September 4, 2008, she had him served with the complaint to dissolve their marriage.   He denied being sexually or romantically involved with Ms. Barna.   The husband further claimed that he and Ms. Barna carried out the idea that they were in a relationship to prevent Ms. Barna's ex-husband (from whom she had been divorced for 20 years) from “coming after her.”   His claims and denials before the court lacked credibility.   The court assigns greater fault to the Husband for the marital breakdown.

The Husband returned to Connecticut in September 2008.   His mother deceased several days later.   During the course of his depositions in April and June 2009, he testified falsely under oath that his mother was still alive and residing in Hungary.   In fact she had died on September 28 in 2008.   After her death, he continued to receive her monthly Social Security benefits and pension from Yale until June 2009, when knowledge of her death was exposed.

The Husband's framed art work was stored in the outdoor shed at the marital home.   It continues to be stored there.   He also stored a compressor in the garage.   While he was in Hungary it was damaged after flooding occurred in the garage.   At the conclusion of the trial, the Plaintiff withdrew her request for the restoration of her birth name.

In entering the following decree the court has taken into consideration among other things, the length of the marriage, the causes of the breakdown of the marriage, the age of the parties, their health, skills, employability, amount and sources of income, distribution of the marital assets, their resources, and their respective ability to acquire work and future income.   The court has considered all of the evidence in the light of the statutory factors in Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–81 and § 46b–82 and hereby enters the following orders:

ORDERS

DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE:

1. The marriage is hereby dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

RESTORATION OF BIRTH NAME:

2. The Wife elected to not have her birth name of Irene Csato restored and therefore may continue to use her married name Irene Feher.

ALIMONY

3. No alimony is awarded to the Wife.

4. No alimony is awarded to the Husband.

HEALTH INSURANCE:

5. The Wife shall be responsible for her own medical, dental, and vision health insurance.

6. The Husband shall be responsible for his own medical, dental, and vision health insurance.

LIFE INSURANCE:

7. The Wife shall be responsible for her own life insurance.   She shall be free to designate any one she chooses as the beneficiary of any policy maintained by her, insuring her life.

8. The Husband shall be responsible for his own life insurance.   He shall be free to designate any one he chooses as the beneficiary of any policy maintained by him, insuring his life.

BANK ACCOUNTS:

9. The Wife shall retain all monies deposited in the Webster Bank checking and savings accounts, and the Sikorsky Financial Credit Union account in her individual name and listed on her financial affidavit, dated February 23, 2011, and filed with the court on March 9, 2011, free and clear of any claim by the Husband.

10. The Husband shall retain all monies deposited in the New Alliance Bank savings account and the Budapest Bank account and listed on his financial affidavit, dated November 9, 2010, and filed with the court on November 12, 2010, free and clear of any claim by the Wife.

AUTOMOBILES:

11. The Wife shall retain and have sole possession and ownership of the 2008 Toyota Rav4 and the 2005 Ford Focus, free and clear of any claim by the Husband.   She shall be solely responsible for paying any outstanding loan balance and all expenses associated with the vehicles.   She shall indemnify and hold him harmless for any liabilities and expenses associated with the use, maintenance, and ownership of the vehicles.   He shall execute any and all documents required to confirm her ownership of the vehicles, if necessary.

12. The Husband shall retain and have sole possession and ownership of the 1999 Dodge Intrepid and the 1999 Yamaha Virago, free and clear of any claim by the Wife. He shall be solely responsible for paying any outstanding loan balance and all expenses associated with the vehicles.   He shall indemnify and hold her harmless for any liabilities and expenses associated with the use, maintenance, and ownership of the vehicles.   She shall immediately return to the Husband the Final Hungarian Custom Release Form for the Dodge Intrepid.   She shall execute any and all documents required to confirm his ownership of the vehicles, if necessary.

PERSONAL PROPERTY:

13. The Husband shall be entitled to retrieve and retain the following items of personal property located at 5 Lisa Drive in Oxford:  (a) the air compressor in the garage, (b) the corner cabinet that was owned by his parents located in the living room, (c) the Hungarian stamp collection that was owned by his father, (d) the coin collection that was owned by his father, and (e) the woodcarvings in the shed that were owned by his parents.   He shall retrieve and remove the items within 60 days from the date of judgment.   If he fails to remove the items from the marital residence within 60 days of judgment, the Plaintiff may retain or dispose of them at her discretion.

14. Other than as set forth above, the court does not require that the Wife return to the Husband or that she pay to him the cash value of the following items of personal property, which he alleged but failed to prove that she destroyed or otherwise disposed:  (a) an oil painting or paintings;  (b) some ethnic valuables;  (c) coin collections;  (d) stamp collections;  (e) antique furniture;  (f) the Husband's mother's jewelry;  (g) hand and power tools;  (h) a collection of DVDs;  (i) a 2005 HP computer;  (j) a 26” monitor;  (k) a MAC computer;  (l) any furniture that was given away to third parties;  (m) the motor to the 2006 Pontoon boat;  and (n) the items listed on Schedule A, attached to the Defendant's Claims for Relief, dated September 21, 2010, which were filed with the court on September 10, 2010.

15. The Wife shall be entitled to retain and have sole ownership of all the remaining household furniture, furnishings, appliances, tools and equipment presently located at the marital residence, except for the Husband's personal effects.

16. The Husband shall be entitled to retain and have sole ownership of all the personal property presently within his possession and/or control free of any claim by the Wife.

17. Any other disclosed asset shall remain the property of the party who now has the asset in their possession free of any claim by the other.

18. The Husband's claims that (a) the Wife pay to him the $12,000 proceeds from the sale of the Pontoon Boat in 2007;  (b) the amount of $12,000, representing the insurance proceeds she received in 2007 for their 2007 Ford Taurus that she totaled in 2007 and used to purchase a replacement vehicle;  (c) the sum of $8,300 of his mother's money, which he provided to the Wife for her to make Szuanna's house in Hungary habitable for use by his mother, him and the Wife;  (d) and the monies the Wife withdrew from their joint account and used to pay household expenses and their joint debts are denied.

RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS:

19. The Wife shall retain her 403B account free and clear of any claim by the Husband.

20. The Husband may retain any retirement or other deferred compensation account that he may have and has disclosed to the Wife, free and clear of any claim by the Wife.

MARITAL RESIDENCE:

21. The Wife shall retain her one-half interest the marital residence at 5 Lisa Drive in Oxford, Connecticut, free and clear of any claim by the Husband.

22. The Wife shall pay to the Husband the sum of ninety-one thousand five hundred ($91,500.00) dollars for his remaining equity in the marital residence.   She shall make the payment to the Husband within two (2) years from the date of Judgment.

23. The Wife shall be entitled to claim the mortgage interest deductions and real estate tax deductions for 2008 and thereafter.

24. The court retains jurisdiction over the marital residence until the Wife has paid the Husband the sum of ninety-one thousand five hundred ($91,500.00) dollars, but not more than for four (4) years.

DEBTS AND LIABILITIES:

25. The Wife shall be responsible for paying all of the debts set forth on her financial affidavit, dated February 23, 2011, and filed with the court on March 9, 2011.   She shall indemnify and hold the Husband harmless against any claims brought against him arising from such debts.

26. The Husband shall be solely responsible for paying the debts set forth on his financial affidavit, dated November 9, 2010 and filed with the court on November 12, 2010.   He shall indemnify and hold the Wife harmless against any claims brought against her arising from such debts.

27. Any debt incurred post-judgment is the sole responsibility of the party incurring the debt.

COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS:

28. The Wife shall be responsible for payment of her attorneys fees.

29. The Husband shall be responsible for payment of his attorneys fees.

By the Court,

John Turner,

Judge Superior Court

Turner, John, J.