Sandra Johnson v. Leonard Johnson (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for dissolution of marriage which has been brought by the plaintiff, Sandra Johnson, against her husband, Leonard Johnson.   The trial consumed two days of court time.   The court has considered all of the statutory and common law factors which would entitle it to make the orders set forth below.

The parties were married on December 29, 1993.   There are no minor children of the marriage and neither parties have received any state or municipal assistance.   Both parties have lived in Connecticut for twelve months prior to the institution of this action.

The plaintiff, who was 49 at the time of the marriage, is now 67 years of age.   She is in apparent good health, there having been no testimony of serious medical issues.   She has a BA and Masters Degree as well as a sixth year of credits applicable to her former career as a junior high science teacher.   She has retired and receives state teachers retirement in the net amount of $855.50 per week.   She also receives social security in the amount of $130 per week.

The defendant, who was 67 at the time of the marriage, is now 85 years of age.   He is in ill health having suffered a heart attack about ten years ago and then a series of falls which have left him unstable on his feet and in need of significant care to handle the normal activities of daily living.   The plaintiff provided this care until she left the marital home at the beginning of 2011 to pursue a romantic relationship with another man.   The defendant's adult son has assumed responsibility for the defendant's care since that time.   It is obvious from the defendant's testimony that he is suffering from some form of mental deterioration which significantly impairs his memory.   He receives a disability pension in the net amount of $651 per week, and Social Security in the net amount of $337 per week.

The parties own a home at 382 Colebrook Road in Colebrook.   The property has a value of approximately $600,000 and is encumbered with two mortgages of approximately $500,000 leaving equity of approximately $100,000.   Of significance, is a cell tower lease on the property which produces income of $232 per week.

The parties also own a vacation home at 12048 S.E. 91st Circle, Summerfield, Florida.   The property is worth approximately $150,000 and there is no mortgage.   They also own two timeshares in Hilton Head, South Carolina with a value of approximately $22,000.   The parties each own a car of roughly equal value.   They each have small bank accounts from which they pay their bills.

The cause for the breakdown in the marriage is the plaintiff's unwillingness to continue to care for her 85 year-old husband.   She did it for 10 years and was very unhappy.   She claims that her husband is nasty, ungrateful and uncooperative.   It is not hard to understand the plaintiff's feelings of unhappiness.   But, the court does not condone her decision to act upon those feelings by leaving her aged husband, moving in with another man and bringing this action for dissolution.

It is unquestionably true that the plaintiff was the source of a majority of the assets of the parties.   Although the defendant still owned a business at the time of the marriage and continued to work for 5 or 6 years, the plaintiff was a teacher and the primary bread-winner during the marriage.   She also withdrew significant funds from her savings and received a substantial inheritance from her mother, both of which she contributed to the joint assets of the parties.

The court has weighed all of the statutory factors for division of the assets of this marriage and finds that a roughly equal split of the assets is appropriate.   It is unfortunate that the parties made some foolish financial decisions which have left them “land poor” in a depressed real estate market.   Although the plaintiff handled all the banking, all transactions were done through a joint account and all financial decisions were made jointly.   The only prudent course of action is to sell the real estate and to split the net proceeds equally.   In the meantime, the plaintiff can continue to live with her boyfriend while the defendant continues to live in the Colebrook house with the help of his son.   The court does not believe that alimony is appropriate in this case.

The court issues the following orders:

1. The marriage is dissolved based upon irretrievable breakdown.

2. The parties shall retain their retirement and social security accounts free and clear of the claims of the other.

3. Neither party shall pay or receive any alimony.

4. The parties shall pay their own attorneys fees.

5. The parties shall keep their own cars and individual bank accounts, free and clear of the claims of the other.

6. The real properties in Connecticut and Florida shall both be listed for sale.   The initial listing price for the Colebrook property shall be $650,000, the initial listing price for the Summerfield, Florida property shall be $175,000, and the initial listing price for the Hilton Head timeshares shall be $25,000.   The parties may accept any offers which they mutually agree upon, but they shall be required to accept any offers on the properties which are within 5% of the listing price.   The parties may mutually agree to lower the listing price of any of the properties at any time.   After two months, either party may return to court to request that the listing prices on one or more properties be lowered by the court.

Upon the sale of any of the properties, the proceeds shall be used first to pay the real estate commission and the costs of closing.   In addition, in the case of the Colebrook property, the balance on the mortgages shall be paid.   In the case of the Summerfield, Florida property, the current balance on the Bank of America credit card of approximately $12,301 also shall be paid.   Until that happens, the plaintiff shall be solely responsible for making the minimum payments necessary to keep this card out of default.   The net proceeds after payment of all of these sums shall be divided equally between the parties.

Neither party shall occupy the Florida property or the time shares.   The defendant shall be permitted to occupy the Colebrook property until it has been sold.   Until the sale, the parties shall continue to abide by the terms of the stipulated court order dated September 6, 2011, with the exception that the defendant's son shall be permitted to live at the Colebrook home to care for his father.

The court shall retain jurisdiction over this section to settle any disputes which may arise over the sale of the properties and the distribution of the proceeds.

7. The personal property in the Connecticut and Florida homes shall be divided equally between the parties.   If the parties cannot agree upon an equal division of the personal property, the parties shall be required to submit their dispute to non-binding mediation at their expense before returning to court to have the court decide the dispute.

8. The plaintiff's maiden name of Cappellina is restored.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

Pickard, John W., J.