Tegan Quintiliani v. Kristopher Quintiliani (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The Court ordered a judgment of dissolution of marriage on July 20, 2011.   This memorandum explains the Court's ruling of July 20, 2011 and enters further orders.

The plaintiff, whose birth name was Sprague married the defendant on August 14, 2004 in Collinsville, Connecticut.   The plaintiff has resided continuously in Connecticut for twelve months prior to bringing this action.   The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably.   There are no minor children born to the parties after the date of the marriage.   Neither party is receiving aid or assistance from the State of Connecticut.

The plaintiff is 26 years old.   She is a registered nurse and works at two jobs.   She is employed by Waterbury Hospital and by Interim Healthcare.   Her combined net weekly income is $1,468.82.   Her weekly living expenses total $805.65.   She has incurred massive debt totaling approximately $139,630.   Of that amount, $87,592.10 is educational debt, $13,975.61 is owed to the IRS for back taxes, and $38,063 is credit card debt.   The credit card debt was incurred by the plaintiff, but the charges were made to benefit both parties.   The plaintiff had the credit cards in her name because the defendant had a bad credit history and was unable to get credit.

The defendant is 32 years old.   He has completed enough courses to earn a master's degree, but he is unable to obtain the diploma because he failed to pay Fordham University the monies he owes.   He is currently employed as a residential manager for Community Systems Inc. and earns a net weekly income of $665.50.   He shows total liabilities of $16,900 of which $3,665.00 is the amount owed to Fordham.

The parties jointly own a three-family house in Torrington, Connecticut.   The plaintiff obtained an appraisal of the property.   The appraiser testified that, using the sales comparison approach and based on a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property on June 17, 2011, the fair market value of the property is $95,000.   After requesting and receiving an extension of time in order to obtain his own appraisal, the defendant did not present any evidence of an appraisal but did not thereafter contest the plaintiff's appraiser's opinion.   The court finds that the value of the property is $95,000.   The mortgage on the property is $170,826.84.   Both parties requested transfer of the other's interest in the property.   The defendant stated that he is being evicted from an apartment where he is living and wants to live in one of the apartments.   He claims that he and not the plaintiff is able to keep the property in good condition so that it may continue to be rented.   The plaintiff wants the property transferred to her because her name is on the mortgage, and she is afraid that, because the defendant has a history of bad credit, her own creditworthiness is at risk.

The defendant claims that the plaintiff has no reason to seek a dissolution because he was not unfaithful or abusive.   The evidence discloses, however, that the defendant is irresponsible with regard to paying bills and this lack of responsibility was the primary cause for the breakdown of the marriage.   Moreover, the court finds that the defendant is not credible.   He attempted to persuade the court that he had supported the plaintiff while she was in nursing school.   The evidence discloses that, although she was married to the defendant while in nursing school, the plaintiff supported herself with two (and sometimes three) jobs.   The defendant also testified that his father owns the motor vehicle, a 2003 Ford Escape, he listed on his financial affidavit.   However, upon being questioned by the court, he admitted that his name alone is on the title.   He attempted to persuade the court that the plaintiff had committed “fraud” in connection with joint tax returns that he had signed.   The plaintiff's testimony on the subject persuades the court that she made an honest mistake with respect to the reporting of tips from waitress jobs on the 2009 and 2010 tax returns.

Based on the foregoing finding of facts, the court orders the following:

1. The marriage of the parties was dissolved on July 20, 2011 due to irretrievable breakdown.

2. The defendant is ordered to convey his interest in the jointly held real estate known as 21 Beechwood Avenue, Torrington, Connecticut to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant is solely responsible for all the debts listed on his financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless thereon.

4. The defendant is further ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $26,000 which sum represents half of the joint credit card debt of the parties and the back taxes owed to the IRS for the years 2009 and 2010.   This sum is ordered paid in weekly installments of $150.00.   Because the defendant violated the court's (Roche, J.) orders with regard to payment of weekly expenses, the weekly sum shall be secured by an immediate wage execution.

5. The plaintiff is solely responsible for her school loans and shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereon.

6. The John Hancock 401K listed on the plaintiff's financial affidavit is to be solely retained by her.

7. Each party shall retain the personal property in their possession and/or listed on the financial affidavits without any claim by the other.

8. The plaintiff's birth name is restored to her.

In rendering this decision, the court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in General Statutes § 46b–81 regarding the assignment of the marital estate.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Gallagher, J.

Gallagher, Elizabeth A., J.