Janice Couture v. James Couture (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for dissolution of marriage and other relief brought to the judicial district of Litchfield.   The plaintiff, whose birth name is Janice Ellis, and the defendant were married on June 19, 1992 at Torrington, CT. The plaintiff has resided continuously in Connecticut for at least twelve months next proceeding the date that the complaint was filed.   The marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably without any reasonable prospects of reconciliation.   There are two minor children issue of this marriage, Margaret Couture born April 5, 1997, and Amy Couture born May 28, 1999.   No other children have been born to the plaintiff wife.   Neither party has received public assistance for their maintenance or support from the state of Connecticut.

This case was tried to this court on May 25 and 26, 2011, where the parties appeared and were represented by counsel.

The court has fully considered the criteria set forth in the relevant General Statutes, as well as the evidence, applicable case law, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and arguments of the parties in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that issue in this decision.

The plaintiff is 44 years old and in good health.   She is employed as a teacher in the Thomaston school district.   The court finds the plaintiff's gross weekly income is $1,427.88, less deductions.   She earned a masters degree from Central Connecticut State University.

The defendant is fifty years old.   He suffers from several medical conditions, including high blood pressure, diabetes, blood clotting disorder, sleep apnea, and gout.   He has also been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder.   He worked for Laars Heating Systems until he was terminated in April 2009 as a result of the economic downturn.   He is now collecting unemployment benefits in the amount of $519 a week.   His earnings from the years at Laars prior to his termination indicate a present earning capacity of between $65,000 and $70,000.   In addition to his employment with Laars, the defendant earned income from his own business, J.C. Mechanical LLC, which installs and services swimming pools, spas, and wood stoves.

The defendant was a territorial service manager for Laars.   His job required that he has available to him an inventory of parts needed by various customers.   These parts were delivered to him by Laars.   When he lost his job, Laars allowed him to keep the parts.   As a result, there is a massive amount of inventory on the property.   Evidence discloses that the inventory has a wholesale value of $144,666.   However, the husband's expert witness testified to a good-faith belief that the “as is” value of the inventory is $45,109.26.   This value is a 90% discount from the manufacturer's suggested retail price.

The couple lived in Torrington in the defendant's two-family house until 1996 when they purchased the home in Morris where the plaintiff currently lives with the parties' children.   The husband sold his home in Torrington to help pay for improvements in the Morris home.   The house has been appraised as having a present value of $200,000.   There is a mortgage of $92,000.

For most of the marriage, the defendant was employed and worked very hard to support his family.   His job entailed a great deal of travel, and the plaintiff undertook most of the childcare responsibilities.   She also paid the bills for J.C. Mechanical, did the bookkeeping and created invoices.   He turned over his paycheck to his wife, and she paid the household bills.   In addition to his work outside the home, the defendant built a barn which he described as 90% completed, and he began building an addition to the home which, based on the evidence, is not finished.

The parties' problems leading to this action for dissolution apparently arose after the husband lost his job.   He wanted to take a year off and think about what he wanted to do.   The wife wanted him to complete the addition he had begun on the house.   The defendant has still not returned to gainful employment.   Neither the house nor the barn is finished.

The defendant was prescribed medication for his bipolar disorder which he claims caused him to drink to excess.   In 2009, he was arrested after a verbal altercation with a neighbor, and thereafter for violating restraining orders and protective orders after this action was commenced.   He also violated the automatic orders by taking money out of a home equity line of credit and by closing out mutual funds accounts.

In addition to the real estate, the parties own a timeshare in Florida.   The husband has several motor vehicles, some of which are called “muscle cars.”   He also has an excavator which he values at $6,000 and tools.   He has a 401k plan which was valued at approximately $90,000, but he removed $40,000.   He has a life insurance policy.   The cash value of that insurance is $17,000.   The present value of the husband's Social Security benefits payable at age 62 is $215,140.   These benefits were accrued by the husband before and during the marriage.   The plaintiff has a State of Connecticut Teachers' Retirement Pension Plan which was earned entirely during the marriage.   The present value of the pension plan is $226,177.   The wife also has a life insurance policy, the cash value of which is $7,572.   The wife's financial affidavit shows that she has a Northwestern Mutual TDA in the amount of $8,788 and a Northwestern Mutual Trad IRA currently valued at $21,115.   She also discloses an American Mutual Funds account with a current value of $54,565.   She owns three life insurance policies with a total cash value of $7,572.38.

Attorney Dina Menchetti has served as guardian ad litem for the parties' minor children since August 2010.   Pursuant to a prior order of the court, each party is responsible for 50% of the fees incurred.   Attorney Menchetti testified that she has had extensive involvement in this case largely due to the husband's parenting behavior.   She opined that, due to the defendant's refusal of treatment and therapy for his bipolar disorder and his inability to communicate civilly with the plaintiff, joint legal custody is not appropriate at this time.   As of May 26, 2011, Attorney Menchetti's fees amounted to $9,411.73.   Pursuant to the court's order, the plaintiff has made payments so as to meet her 50% obligation.   Her current amount due is $1,230.86.   The husband has paid nothing.   He owes Attorney Menchetti $4,705.86.

Upon completing its consideration of the evidence and the provisions of the relevant Connecticut General Statutes, this Court enters judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown with no hope for reconciliation.

The Court further orders as follows:

1. Custody and Visitation

The plaintiff shall have full custody of the minor children.   The defendant's visitation with the minor children is terminated pending further order of the court.   The defendant shall have e-mail and telephone communications with the minor children.   The plaintiff shall monitor all such communications at her discretion.

2. Alimony, Child Support, Tax Exemptions, and Educational Support Orders

Neither party shall pay alimony to the other.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff child support in the amount of $116 per week as long as the defendant is receiving unemployment compensation and is not gainfully employed.   The defendant shall notify the plaintiff when he obtains employment.   Any increase in child support resulting from the defendant obtaining employment shall be retroactive to the date of employment.   The plaintiff shall maintain medical insurance as available to her through her employment at a reasonable cost for the benefit of the minor children.   The parties shall share equally the unreimbursed medical and dental expenses for the minor children.   The parties shall also share equally the cost of any work-related day care costs for the minor children.   The parties shall share equally the cost of summer camp for the minor children.   For the year 2011, the plaintiff shall claim both minor children as dependent exemptions for tax purposes.   Should the defendant obtain gainful employment and increase his share of child support accordingly between this date and June 30, 2012, he shall be entitled to claim the child Margaret as his dependent exemption for tax purposes for 2012.   Thereafter, and as long as the defendant is gainfully employed and paying child support accordingly, each of the parties shall claim one child.   When only one child is available as a dependent exemption, the parties shall alternate that child with the plaintiff having the child in the first year of alternating.

The court shall retain jurisdiction to enter an educational support order in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56c.

3. Property division and Pension/Social Security benefits

The defendant's interest in the marital home is awarded to the plaintiff “as is.”   The plaintiff shall assume the mortgage and HELOC loan, holding the defendant harmless and indemnified.   The plaintiff shall refinance the mortgage and HELOC loan within one year in order to remove the defendant from said obligation.   The plaintiff shall retain all the contents of the house except those items which specifically belong to the defendant, including soda machines, Golden Retriever books, personal effects, and a stereo system that he owned prior to the marriage.   Plaintiff shall retain the snowmobile, the snow blower, weight box for the Ariens tractor, swimming pool and swimming pool accessories.

The defendant shall transfer title of the Nissan Quest to the plaintiff.   The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff ten thousand dollars which amount he removed from the home equity line of credit in violation of the automatic orders.   The plaintiff shall retain her life insurance policies, Northwestern Mutual TDA and IRA, and the American Mutual Funds.

The defendant shall retain all of his parts inventory, tools, motor vehicles other than the Nissan Quest, and the excavator.   The defendant shall also retain the Quonset Hut presently located on the marital property.   All of said items are to be removed from the Deer Lane property within 45 days of the date of this decision.   If the items are not removed by that time, the plaintiff shall cause the items to be removed and stored at the defendant's expense.   The plaintiff shall notify the defendant as to the location of the storage facility for the items.   The defendant shall be responsible for payment of any and all moving and storage fees for the items.

The plaintiff shall transfer all of her interest in the Florida timeshare to the defendant.   The defendant shall be responsible for obtaining the documentation necessary for the transfer.   Defendant is also responsible for any costs associated with the timeshare and vacation club and shall indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless thereon.

J.C. Mechanicals, LLC shall be the sole property of the defendant.

The defendant shall retain his 401k, including the funds withdrawn from the 401k and held by defendant's attorney in escrow subject to the following conditions:  (1) the plaintiff is paid the $10,000 to replace the money taken by the defendant as part of the home equity loan;  and (2) the defendant's property is removed from the Deer Lane premises at the defendant's expense.

Each party shall retain his/her pension and Social Security benefits.

(4) Responsibility for debts and name change

Each party is responsible for the debts listed on that party's financial affidavit.   Each party is responsible for his/her share of fees owed to Attorney Dina Menchetti.   Each party is responsible for his/her own attorneys fees.   The plaintiff's birth name is restored to her.

So Ordered.

BY THE COURT,

Gallagher, J.

Gallagher, Elizabeth A., J.