Peter Yankowski v. Jennifer Yankowski (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This action for dissolution of marriage and other relief was brought to this court on January 26, 2010.

The case was tried to this court on June 24, August 10, August 16, and September 1, 2011.   The plaintiff was self-represented.   The defendant was represented by Attorney James R. Mulvey.

The court listened to and observed the witnesses and reviewed the exhibits.   In addition, the court has carefully considered the criteria set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders below.

The court finds the following facts.   The plaintiff and the defendant, whose maiden name was Jennifer Hiltz, were married on July 9, 1987 in Oberwesel am Rhine, Germany.   One party resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to the commencement of this action.   The court heard testimony from each of the parties as well as Robert Petrini, a real estate appraiser.

The parties met in December 1984, during the plaintiff's senior year at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.   They married in Germany in 1987, and, due to the plaintiff's military service, were often separated for long periods of time, sometimes as long as four or five weeks.   Due to the plaintiff's military career, the parties lived in Georgia and California before eventually settling in Connecticut.   Their marital problems began as far back as 1989, but the parties did not separate, however, until July 2010.   Throughout the marriage, the defendant suggested counseling, but the plaintiff resisted.

The parties own a residence in Redding, Connecticut which has a fair market value of $365,000 and little equity.   The house, currently in a state of disrepair, was purchased for $255,000.

The plaintiff, 49, is a West Point graduate with a degree in engineering.   He was honorably discharged from the Army as a lieutenant colonel with a top security clearance.   The plaintiff's last significant employment ended in 2010 when he was laid off while working for Lockheed Martin.   At the time he was laid off, he received a gross salary of $115,000 per year.   The court finds that he has an earning capacity of $115,000 per year.

The plaintiff claims significant injuries and illnesses, including post traumatic stress disorder, blood disorders, hepatitis, and a scarred liver.   These injuries and illnesses, however, were not sufficiently proven to the court.

The court does not find the plaintiff's testimony credible.   During the trial, he rambled on, at times incoherently, about his medical condition and was unresponsive to numerous questions on cross-examination.   Further, the plaintiff was evasive regarding his salary, military and civilian job duties, military record, and disabilities.   Despite his education and credentials, he presents himself as ignorant of even some of his most basic background information.   Nevertheless, the court finds that these claimed disabilities have had no impact on his ability to work.

The plaintiff is now enrolled as a full-time graduate student at Norwich University where he is taking an online master's degree course in diplomacy.   The cost of the course is paid for by the Veterans' Administration.   The court finds that, while attending school full-time, he earns a net weekly income of $439 from Job Corps, and he receives $321 per week in VA benefits.   He now resides in a 400 square foot apartment.

The court credits the defendant's testimony regarding the breakdown of the marriage and finds that the plaintiff was extremely controlling, especially about their finances, as well as argumentative and highly critical.   As a consequence of the plaintiff's conduct, the defendant was forced to seek counseling.   The court finds that the plaintiff was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.   He also has a contentious relationship with the children and has had little or no contact with them since July 2010.

The defendant, age 48 and in good health, works as a kindergarten teacher at Wooster School.   She earned a master's degree in education.   The court finds that the defendant's gross weekly income is $1,069, less deductions.

As a mother, the defendant worked diligently with her children to help them overcome their early learning disabilities.   She spent many evening hours tutoring the children with their schoolwork.   Although the children have life skill challenges, her extraordinary efforts on their behalf have resulted in their being self sufficient and successful.   Both Elizabeth and Peter are thriving at Sarah Lawrence College due, in no small measure, to the defendant's dedication to her children.

The defendant has struggled to educate the children, oftentimes without adequate financial assistance from the plaintiff.   The court finds that since the filing of this action, her father has had to loan her money to pay the mortgage, for the children's tuition, as well as her other living expenses.   The defendant pays all of the personal living expenses for the children and has charged many of those expenses on her VISA account.   Without an adequate contribution from the plaintiff, there exists a gap owing this year for tuition of $36,000 for which she has insufficient resources.   The defendant seeks to stay in the home, with financial assistance from her father, so that the children feel that they remain somewhat of an intact family.

The parties have reached an agreement, which the court adopts, as to their personal property.   The defendant shall store the plaintiff's personal property in the shed and he shall retrieve the property within thirty (30) days.   The defendant shall replace the plaintiff's futon.

The court has considered the provisions of § 46b–82 regarding the issue of alimony, the provisions of § 46b–81(c) regarding the issue of property division, the provisions of § 46b–62 regarding the issue of attorneys fees, and the provisions of § 46b–56(c) regarding the issue of educational support orders.

ORDERS

1. Breakdown of Marriage:

The marriage shall be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

2. Educational Support Order:

The parties, pursuant to § 46b–56c of the Connecticut General Statutes, shall each be responsible for one-half of the necessary educational expenses for their two children, including:  room, board, dues, tuition, fees, registration and application costs, but subject to the limitation that such expenses shall not be more than the amount charged for a full-time, in-state student at the University of Connecticut.   The educational support order shall also include the cost of books and medical insurance for each child.   The parties shall cooperate in the furnishing of all applications for financial aid to the educational institution.   The court finds that the parties would more likely than not have provided support for the children's higher education if the family had remained intact.

3. Real Property:

The plaintiff's right, title and interest in and to the property at 326 Redding Road, Redding, Connecticut, are hereby conveyed to the defendant pursuant to § 46b–81(c), to be her property free and clear of any claims of the plaintiff.   The defendant shall assume the mortgage encumbering said premises and indemnify and hold harmless the plaintiff on account thereof.

4. Vermont Mortgage Note:

The Vermont mortgage note shall be the property of the plaintiff free and clear of any claims of the defendant.

5. TIAA CREF Retirement Account:

Said account shall be the property of the defendant free and clear of any claims of the plaintiff.

6. Military/National Guard Pension Benefit:

A. The plaintiff has certain pension benefits as a result of his military and National Guard services which are projected to begin payment on October 1, 2021.   Said benefits shall be divided equally by the parties pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.   The parties shall retain the services of Attorney Elizabeth McMahon, or another attorney agreeable to both parties, to prepare the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders.   The fee for the attorney shall be divided equally by the parties.

B. The plaintiff shall maintain Spouse Reserve Survivor Benefits Plan (RSBP) coverage to ensure the defendant can claim U.S. Army RSBP benefits in the event of death.   The court shall retain jurisdiction over any issues regarding the division of the pension.

7. Debts:

A. The Tritown Credit Visa debt as shown on the defendant's financial affidavit shall be divided equally by the parties.

B. The defendant shall be solely responsible for her loans which are payable to her father.

8. Motor Vehicles:

Each party shall maintain the motor vehicle in his or her respective possession.   All other personal property has been divided by the parties.   The parties shall cooperate with completing any paperwork necessary to transfer the titles.

9. Interest and Tax Deductions:

The mortgage interest deduction and real property tax deduction for 2010 for the martial residence shall be divided equally by the parties.   For 2011, the party who paid interest shall receive the deduction.

10. Alimony:

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as and for periodic alimony, during his lifetime, the sum of $1.00 per year until the first of the following to occur:

a) the death of the plaintiff;

b) the death of the defendant;

c) nine (9) years from the date of dissolution of marriage.

Alimony shall be nonmodifiable by way of extension of term, but shall remain modifiable in all other respects.   Alimony shall be taxable to the defendant and deductible by the plaintiff.   Alimony may also be modified, suspended or terminated pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–86(b).

The plaintiff shall notify the defendant upon any change in employment within 72 hours of said change by certified mail, return receipt.   The notification shall include the name of the employer, position, salary and benefits.

11. Tax Returns:

So long as there is an obligation to pay alimony, the plaintiff and the defendant shall exchange Federal Tax Returns on or before May 1st of each year.

12. Restoration of Defendant's Maiden Name:

The defendant's name is restored to Hiltz.

BY THE COURT,

Marano, J.

Marano, Richard M., J.