Elizabeth Pavlakis v. John Pavlakis (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff wife initiated this action by way of a complaint filed on July 29, 2009, seeking the dissolution of the parties' marriage based upon irretrievable breakdown.   This complaint was amended on March 15, 2010.   A request for Reconciliation Status was made on March 22, 2010 and was granted by the court on March 26, 2010.   Reconciliation was unsuccessful.

On April 1, 2011, the parties submitted and the court, Taylor J., accepted a detailed parenting plan agreement which resolved all custody and parenting issues in this case.

A fully contested trial was held to address financial issues before the undersigned on July 28, July 29, and September 2, 2011.   Both the plaintiff and the defendant were represented by counsel.   Both parties appeared and testified at trial.

The court has fully considered the criteria set forth in Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b–81, 46b–82, 46b–84, 46b–56, 46b–56c and 46b–62 as well as the evidence, applicable case law, the demeanor and credibility of the parties and any witnesses and arguments of counsel in finding the facts and in reaching the conclusions reflected in the orders in this decision.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

This court finds the following by a fair preponderance of the evidence.   The court has jurisdiction of this matter and all statutory stays have expired.   At least one of the parties has continuously resided in the state of Connecticut for at least one year prior to the filing of this action.   The allegation in the complaint has been proven and is true.   The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably with no possibility of reconciliation.   The parties received state or local financial assistance during the course of the marriage in the way of HUSKY medical insurance for the plaintiff and the children.

The plaintiff, whose original name was Elizabeth Ann Newberg, and the defendant were lawfully married on May 8, 1993 in Peoria, Illinois.   There are four minor children born to the parties:  George A. Pavlakis, born April 16, 1999;  Gabriella A. Pavlakis, born May 20, 2001;  John T. Pavlakis, born January 10, 2005;  and Katherine A. Pavlakis, born September 19, 2006.

The parties met in 1992 while backpacking through Europe.   They were engaged that year, although the defendant's family, whom the plaintiff characterized as an “old world Greek family,” initially refused to meet the plaintiff and did not attend the parties' wedding.   On that initial visit, the plaintiff observed the defendant and his siblings being physically violent with each other.

The plaintiff earned a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science and Journalism from the University of Missouri in 1990.   In the early years of the marriage, the plaintiff was employed in Sydney, Australia at the “Rupert Murdoch newspaper,” a job she deemed a “great experience.”   She was also employed by two charities during the time of the defendant's job relocations but her employment opportunities were somewhat hampered by a series of moves necessitated by the defendant's numerous changes in employment that occurred throughout the marriage.   Her professional opportunities were also somewhat limited by the births of four children when the parties agreed that the plaintiff would stay at home to raise the children.   The plaintiff did ultimately return to the work force and is currently employed as a Community Editor and Staff Writer for the New Britain Herald, working full time and earning approximately $404.00 per week in net income.

The defendant earned Economics and the Law Degrees from Sydney University as well as a Master's in Law. The court heard extensive testimony regarding the defendant's high level earnings and changes in employment over the course of the marriage.   His employment locales took him and his family from Sydney to Slovakia, London, Chicago, Detroit, Boca Raton, Princeton, the Hartford area at UTC, and, as of the last date of trial, New York City. Historically, the defendant has received bonus and severance income from various employers as well.   At his current place of employment, excluding bonus income, his net income is approximately $2,100.00 per week.

In their testimony, each party characterized the marriage as unsatisfactory from the start.   A better description would be a highly dysfunctional marriage.   It was a marriage where each party engaged in acts of violence toward the other.   Theirs was a marriage where the defendant called the plaintiff demeaning names, and where the plaintiff called the defendant names as well, often in the presence of the children.   It was also a marriage where lack of communication was always an issue, where the parties lived beyond their means, where financial difficulties were ever present and where there was constant stress on the defendant to earn even more.

Without setting forth the disturbing details, at least three violent incidents occurred involving the defendant and the children between 2006 and 2009, two of which resulted in the defendant's arrest.   While the dysfunctional nature of the parties' marriage certainly played a role in the demise of this marriage, it was the events involving the children that precipitated the dissolution action.

To the defendant's credit, he fully engaged in court ordered programs and counseling to address his anger issues and, as a result, his parenting of and relationship with the children has much improved.   In addition, although the defendant has had a host of changes in his employment for various reasons, he has received generous separation packages and has moved on to other high level jobs each time.   In fact, the defendant has been fully employed for all but six months of the marriage.   Presently, he is employed in New York City, rents an attic apartment in Westchester County during the work week and has an apartment locally that allows him to exercise his parenting time with the children and to be an active part of their lives.   He incurs rental expenses for both apartments, transportation costs to his place of employment and to see the children, and day to day living expenses for himself and expenses for the children during his parenting time.

To the plaintiff's credit, prior to the births of the children, she made the difficult transition after each of the defendant's relocations to secure employment.   Once the children were born, she removed herself from the work force for the next twelve years to raise them.   She has assisted the children after each relocation in the difficult but necessary adjustment to new schools and new homes.   Now that the children are all school age, the plaintiff is, once again, employed full time.

This court has taken into account the monies spent by the parties and advanced by the court during the pendente lite period of this action.   The parties have sold the family home and the proceeds are currently being held in escrow pending this court's decision.   This court has also considered, at the parties' request, Attorney Fried's analysis on the tax implications of various financial proposals.

For all of the foregoing reasons, and taking into account any prior court orders regarding credits to be given at the time of this court's final judgment, the following orders are entered:

ORDERS

Dissolution. The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

Custody and Parenting agreement.   The custody and parenting agreement entered on April 1, 2011 shall be incorporated by reference into this judgment.

Relocation. Each party shall provide the other with notice of an intent to relocate more than fifty miles away at least ninety days prior to the proposed relocation.

Child Support.   Pursuant to the guidelines, child support shall be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of $500.00 per week until the children have attained at least the age of eighteen and have graduated from high school, but no later than their 19th birthdays.   This support shall be secured by contingent wage withholding.

In addition, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 19% of any bonus income as additional support for the minor children.   This amount was calculated by multiplying the guideline percentage used to calculate the basic child support obligation (23.65%) by the percentage share that is the defendant's child support obligation (81%).   That amount shall be paid within thirty days of receipt.

The parties shall divide employment related childcare expenses and unreimbursed medical, dental, and psychological expenses—40% payable by the defendant, 60% payable by the plaintiff pursuant to the child support guidelines.

Extracurricular expenses.   The defendant shall provide up to $1,500.00 annually for extracurricular expenses for the minor children.

Child tax exemption.   For tax year 2011, the defendant shall take all four children as tax exemptions.   Thereafter, if the plaintiff is earning at least $25,000.00 in gross annual income, she shall claim the youngest child and the defendant shall claim the three older children as tax exemptions.   The defendant's ability to claim the children is dependent on his satisfying the alimony and child support obligations required by this judgment.

Health insurance.   The defendant shall provide health insurance for the benefit of the minor children if it is available and at a reasonable cost to him through his employment.   If not, the plaintiff shall provide health and dental insurance as available through her place of employment and at reasonable cost to her.   If not available to either party or not at reasonable cost, the parties are ordered to procure health benefits through the HUSKY plan or its equivalent.

The parties shall each maintain their own health insurance.

Post-majority educational support.   Based on the agreement of the parties and pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–56c, this court finds that it is more likely than not that the parties would have contributed to the post-majority educational support of the minor children and the court will therefore retain jurisdiction on this issue.

Life insurance.   The defendant shall maintain life insurance available to him through his employment or privately obtained by him, sufficient to cover the alimony and child support obligations and four years of the cost of UConn tuition, room, and board per child until the youngest child attains the age of 23.   The defendant shall name the plaintiff as beneficiary of the life insurance covering the alimony obligation and shall name the plaintiff and the children as co-beneficiaries of the life insurance covering the child support and college obligations.

Mortgage tax deduction and any tax liabilities.   The defendant shall receive the mortgage tax deduction for 2011 and shall be responsible for any outstanding tax liabilities.

Alimony. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $775.00 per week in alimony for a period of nine years.   The order is modifiable as to amount only, by either party upon a substantial change in circumstances and terminates upon the death of either party, remarriage of the plaintiff or cohabitation as defined by statute.   The defendant shall pay as additional alimony to the plaintiff, and for a period of nine years, 20% of any bonus income, within thirty days of receipt.   The parties shall exchange, on an annual basis, W–2s, 1099s and any other evidence of earned income within two weeks of receipt of that documentation for so long as the child support or alimony obligation exists.   The parties shall notify each other upon any changes in employment.

Assets distribution/attorneys fees/guardian ad litem fees.   Before any asset distribution occurs, all outstanding attorneys and guardian ad item fees shall be paid from proceeds from the equity in the family home.   Prior to distribution, any outstanding utility bills for the family home shall be paid from that escrow account as well.

1. Equity from the sale of the family home

Taking into account any prior distributions, the plaintiff shall receive 60% of the remaining equity in the family home;  the defendant shall receive 40%.

2. Retirement assets

The plaintiff shall receive 60% of any retirement assets, the defendant shall receive 40%.   The parties shall cooperate with the transfer of these assets by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.   The parties shall share any associated expenses equally.

3. Personal property

Miscellaneous property.   The defendant shall receive the rowing machine and half of the Waterford Crystal.

Automobiles. Each party shall retain his or her own vehicle and will cooperate with the other in signing over title of those vehicles to the other.   Each party shall be responsible for any taxes, insurance or liabilities associated with their respective vehicles.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Prestley, J.

Prestley, Linda Pearce, J.