Paige M. Ferrigno v. Mark B. Ferrigno (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for dissolution of marriage brought by Writ, Summons and Complaint dated April, 29, 2010.   Both parties appeared through counsel and the matter was referred to Family Services for a custody mediation.   The matter was then claimed to the trial list.

The plaintiff, whose birth name was Paige Maguda, and the defendant were married on August 27, 1994 in New Hartford, Connecticut.   They have resided in Connecticut for more than twelve months prior to the commencement of this action.   They have two minor children under the age of eighteen, namely Mikalah who was born June 30, 1995 and Christopher who was born March 16, 1998.

The plaintiff is forty-eight years old.   She is in reasonably good health although she takes medication for depression.   She has a high school diploma and a certificate in accounting from a business school.   She has been employed by Janine Fund-raisers for about eight years.   She works 40 hours a week at the rate of $10 an hour.   She earns $400 a week.

The plaintiff has been a volunteer with the Town of Canton Fire and Ambulance since 1986.   She is currently assistant chief for the Canton Volunteer Fire and Ambulance Company.   She works a twelve-hour shift two weekends per month.   She receives about $63 a week from that job.   The plaintiff is a certified CPR instructor as well as a certified EMT. She is qualified to work as an EMT on a paid basis.   Given her certifications, she has an earning capacity that exceeds what she is earning.

Plaintiff has a defined benefit plan with the Town of Canton and bank accounts totaling $2,767.   She also owns a 2000 Toyota Sienna.

The defendant works at Eppendorf, Inc. in Enfield in computer operations.   He has had this job since October 2010 subsequent to being laid off in May 2010 by Travelers.   When he was laid off, he received a severance which he used to pay the mortgage, the oil bill, a credit card and other household expenses.   The defendant has a steady work history, having been trained in computer operations.   Prior to working for Travelers, he worked in computer operations for the State of Connecticut.   His current salary is $75,000 a year.   He has health insurance through his employer.

Defendant has a 401K through Eppendorf currently valued at $3,077, a 401K through The Hartford ISP valued at $11,535, and a 401K through IBM valued at $32,594.   He has checking accounts totaling $6,680.   He has two motor vehicles, a 1998 Toyota Camry and a 1987 plow truck, with a combined value of $4,500.

The parties purchased the family home in December 1999 with financial help from their parents.   At present, the equity in the family home is between $120,000 and $135,000.

The plaintiff testified that she wishes to leave the family home with the children.   She believes that she will be able to obtain a three-bedroom apartment at the cost of $1,450 a month.   The defendant wishes to remain in the family home until it is sold.   The mortgage and property taxes total approximately $1,450 a month.

Although the parties continue to co-exist in the same house, the breakdown of the marriage occurred some time ago.   The plaintiff has a problem with alcohol abuse and would come home intoxicated two or three nights a week.   She has not slept in the same bedroom as the defendant for the past several years.   Instead, she sleeps out on the couch.   Plaintiff admitted to an affair.   Defendant has been verbally violent, calling the plaintiff vile names in front of the children and accusing her of having affairs.   She expressed concern about his marijuana and prescription drug use.   He admits to the name-calling.   He has exhibited bizarre behavior, shooting a gun off in the basement and frightening the plaintiff during an argument to the extent that she called the police.

Family Relations Counselor Marcia Camp did a custody evaluation.   She reported that the home is very chaotic.   Plaintiff's clothes are strewn around two rooms of the house.   She saw no effort at organization.   One of her concerns is plaintiff's alcohol use as it relates to plaintiff's ability to parent her children 100% of the time.   Plaintiff admitted to her that her use of alcohol was out of control for a year.   Ms. Camp also expressed concerns about the defendant's parenting skills.   She saw photographs of marijuana.   Photographs of the family home show the disorganization about which Marcia Camp spoke.

Based on all of the evidence, the court finds that, although the parties share responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage, the plaintiff's behavior is the chief cause.   The plaintiff clearly abandoned the marriage.   Her contemptuous attitude toward it and the family home is expressed by her failure to keep the living and dining rooms comfortable or even habitable for the family.   That attitude and her excessive drinking have negatively impacted the parties' children.

The defendant allowed his anger to fester until his behavior became erratic and, at one point resulted in an arrest.   His inability to control his anger has resulted in verbal and psychological violence which has also negatively impacted their children.

The court concludes that the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably and enters judgment dissolving the marriage.

The parties shall share joint legal custody of the children with primary residence with the mother.   Given the ages of the children and the animosity between the parents, the court orders that the defendant have such reasonable and flexible visitation at the sole discretion of the children without any interference from the plaintiff.   The parties shall obtain counseling through the Family Relations Office in order to better parent their children.   The parties are ordered to cooperate with any and all recommendations of the Family Relations Office.

The family home shall be placed on the market within 30 days of the entry of this judgment.   If the parties cannot agree on a listing price, the listing price shall be determined by the licensed real estate broker with whom the property is placed for sale.   The proceeds from the sale of the home shall be equally divided after the mortgage and all expenses incident to the sale are deducted.

If, during the pendency of the listing, a major repair becomes necessary, the defendant shall pay the cost of the repair.   The defendant shall be repaid with interest from the proceeds of sale of the home prior to the division of proceeds.   A major repair for purposes of this provision is any repair costing in excess of $500.   All minor repairs and items of maintenance shall be paid by the plaintiff.

The court awards sole possession of the family home to the plaintiff until it is sold because she is the parent with whom the children will primarily reside and because, based on the evidence, the parties' finances at this time do not support a three-bedroom apartment for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is ordered to remove her clothing and other personal items from the living and dining rooms within 10 days of this decision.   The home is to be maintained by the plaintiff in a clean and orderly fashion so as to make it a comfortable environment for the children and presentable for showing.

The defendant has 60 days to vacate the home.

The parties are ordered to complete and file their joint tax return for the year 2010 if they have not already done so.   The parties shall share equally any refund due.

The defendant shall pay the mortgage, property taxes, homeowners insurance and one-half the fuel bill as unallocated alimony and child support until the home is sold.   This amount is not in accordance with the child support guidelines which fix the amount of child support to be paid by the defendant as $248 a week.   However, the best interests of the children justify a significant deviation from the guidelines at this time because the plaintiff's earnings are substantially less than those of the defendant, her present earnings cannot support a three-bedroom apartment, and the parties' children need a place to live.   The defendant shall have the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction.

In fashioning these orders, the court is aware that the plaintiff has an earning capacity that exceeds the salary she is now earning given her certifications and years of experience in the field, and that the plaintiff may require additional education/training to obtain a higher paying job.   The court expects that the plaintiff will therefore obtain whatever education/training she needs in order to seek paid employment as an EMT/paramedic or related work as soon as possible in order to meet her responsibility to help support herself and the children.   Therefore, if the home is not sold by the time Mikalah reaches the age of 18 or by the time she graduates from high school, whichever comes first, the defendant may seek a modification of this order.

Upon sale of the home, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the weekly sum of $350 a week as child support until Mikalah reaches the age of 18 or graduates from high school, whichever comes first.   Thereafter, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $200 a week as child support until Christopher reaches the age of 18 or graduates from high school, whichever comes first.

The unallocated alimony and child support order ends with the closing on the family home and is modifiable during the pendency of the listing as to amount but not as to term.   Specifically, the order may be modified upon the plaintiff's death, remarriage or co-habitation in accordance with the statute.

The defendant shall provide medical insurance through his employer for the benefit of the children if the same can be provided at a reasonable cost.   The parties shall share equally the unreimbursed medical and extracurricular activities expenses of the minor children, including, but not limited to, Mikalah's dance instruction.

The defendant shall maintain his current $100,000 life insurance for the benefit of the minor children until the younger child reaches the age of 23 or completes college, whichever shall occur first.

For purposes of filing for tax year 2012 and all subsequent years during which the defendant pays the mortgage, taxes and homeowner's insurance for the family home, the defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as dependents for all tax reporting purposes.   For purposes of filing for tax year 2011, the parties shall share equally any refund due and/or shall be equally responsible for any payment due the IRS or State of Connecticut.

The Ameriprise custodial accounts and Collinsville Savings Society accounts for Mikalah and Christopher listed on the plaintiff's financial affidavit shall be held by the plaintiff for the benefit of the children.

The Court finds, more likely than not, that the parents would have provided some support to the minor children for higher education had the family remained intact.   The Court will reserve jurisdiction to enter an Educational Support Order pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b–56c.

The parties shall convey to each other one-half the value of their deferred compensation plans listed on their respective financial affidavits.   If a QDRO is necessary to accomplish this, the parties shall share equally the cost of the preparation of the QDRO.

The plaintiff shall retain, free and clear of any claim from the defendant, her motor vehicle and any bank accounts currently in her name.

The defendant shall retain, free and clear of any claim from the plaintiff, his motor vehicles and any bank accounts currently in his name.

Each party is responsible to pay the debts on that party's financial affidavit and to hold the other party harmless on same except for any medical expenses for the minor children which are to be equally split between the parties.

The parties shall equitably divide their personal property.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT,

Gallagher, J.

Gallagher, Elizabeth A., J.