Dino Koletsos v. Loula Koletsos (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This action came on for trial on the complaint of plaintiff, Dino Koletsos seeking a decree of divorce.   The court having heard all the evidence and considered all the testimony and exhibits introduced herein, makes the following findings, orders and decrees.

The plaintiff, Dino Koletsos or “husband” and the defendant, Loula Koletsos or “wife” were married on August 23, 1968 in Greece.   The parties have resided within the State of Connecticut more or less continuously since their coming to the United States shortly after their marriage in 1968.   They have resided within the State of Connecticut well more than one year prior to the filing of this complaint.   Based upon the testimony of both parties as well as the testimony of the two adult children of the marriage, it is abundantly clear that the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of reconciliation.   The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action as well as the parties to this case and finds that the parties are entitled to a decree of divorce.   The court hereby dissolves the bonds of matrimony between the plaintiff and the defendant and enters such decree of divorce.

The plaintiff husband is a 71 year old male who reports significant health problems including diabetes, hypertension and back problems.   He reports that he is currently unemployed, has had no full-time employment for the past five years and no part-time employment for about two years.   He testified, credibly, that he is currently unable to work.

By virtue of a number of increasingly acrimonious disputes between the plaintiff and his wife and other family members, which resulted in a number of arrests for domestic violence, criminal restraining and civil protective orders, the plaintiff currently lives with his brother though plaintiff reports that arrangement cannot continue.

The wife is a 58 year old female in apparent good health but reporting some health problems including asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, and aches and pains.   She is currently employed as a cashier in a local supermarket chain though she reports that work is increasingly hard for her physically.

The parties report that despite the extraordinary length of this marriage there have always been problems between the parties.   The parties were married overseas while defendant was extremely young and after the briefest time together.   For a number of years the wife lived in Greece with very limited contact or communication with the plaintiff.   There have been numerous problems and disputes between the parties many of which may have originated due to involvement of in-laws, financial difficulties or job related problems of Mr. Koletsos.   Mr. Koletsos has a history of frequent job changes as a result of what would appear to be very limited interpersonal skills on his part.

As for the causes of the breakup of the marriage, it first appears that while this has been a lengthy marriage, it is long been a troubled one.   The plaintiff attributes the breakdown both to his own health problems and to his wife's alleged mistreatment of him.   He suspects his wife of infidelity but has presented no evidence at all to support this accusation.   On the other hand it clearly appears that Mr. Koletsos consistently finds himself at odds with others, not only on the job but with his family members who describe insensitive, indeed abusive, treatment to the other family members over a lengthy period of time.   This evidence was consistent with the personality he displayed while testifying in the case.   It is clear the plaintiff is primarily responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.

While the court has considered all the factors set out in statutes in reaching determinations as to the award of alimony and division of property, the other significant factors are as follows.

The court finds that both parties have contributed substantially to the economic assets of the marriage in that both have worked frequently and have contributed monies received from their families or inheritance toward the economic well being of their family.   Accordingly, in reaching a fair and equitable division of the property, the court has tempered its finding on the causes of the breakup of the marriage with a recognition of the shared long term contributions to the economic success of these parties and a recognition of the plaintiff's current difficult economic situation.

Property Division

The court notes that the parties have previously divided all personal property by agreement though some items of property belonging to the plaintiff remain at the marital residence on Leatherwood Avenue in Norwalk, Connecticut.   The court awards to each party their own clothes, personal affects, jewelry and other items of property allocated between them.

The defendant shall make all items of personal property belonging to the plaintiff and currently located at the marital residence available to the plaintiff for pickup within 45 days from the date of this decree.   To the extent the plaintiff remains under restraining or protective orders limiting his access to the residence, he must remain in compliance with them either by arranging for the pick up of such items of personal property by another person or he may come to the property with prior notice and a police officer present.   The court will maintain continuing jurisdiction for a period of three months within which to adjudicate and determine any disputes between the parties as to the division or transfer of items of personal property.

Each party is further awarded the motor vehicle(s) shown on their financial statement.   To the extent that title is not currently held in the name of the party to whom such auto has been awarded, the other side will execute all appropriate paperwork, transfers or assignments reasonably necessary to effect this order.

Each party shall maintain as their own separate property free from any claim of the other all their current income as reflected in their financial affidavits, including any salaries, insurance payments and social security benefits.

Each party will additionally retain all their bank and financial accounts including any deferred compensation accounts or plans, IRA, 401Ks or pensions, all as shown in their financial affidavits.

Each party will maintain as their own separate property any and all life insurance policies they may own and each may be free to change any beneficiary designation.   With regard to the Prudential insurance annuity shown in section 4G of defendant's Ex. B, the plaintiff may retain all current annuity payments being made during his life.   However, he shall not change the designation of the defendant Loula Koletsos as the residual beneficiary upon his death.

With regard to the real property owned by the parties, the court awards the apartment in Athens, Greece to the wife as her sole and exclusive property free of any and all claims by the plaintiff.

With regard to the marital home located at One Leatherwood Road in Norwalk, Connecticut, the court finds that the approximate value of this property is $440,000.   The court awards sole and exclusive title to the property to the defendant Loula Koletsos.   The plaintiff shall execute and deliver a Quitclaim Deed to the defendant for the marital residence within 30 days of this decree.

From this property however, the court allocates the plaintiff a total of $135,000 which must be paid from the defendant to the plaintiff within 120 days of this decree.

Other Matters

The court declines to award either party any alimony, given the extremely modest income available to the parties.   The court also declines to award either party their fees or costs for the same reasons.

Done this 15th day of July 2011.

BY THE COURT

WENZEL, J.

Wenzel, William, J.