Karen M. Izzo v. Stephen J. Izzo (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The parties were married in Fairfield, Connecticut on July 30, 1995.   The Plaintiff's name at the time of the marriage was McHugh.

By complaint dated September 29, 2010, the Wife instituted this action claiming a dissolution of marriage, custody and support of the minor child, alimony, an equitable share of the marital estate and other relief as law and equity might provide.

There is one child born issue of this marriage:  Dylan B. Izzo, born on May 7, 1996.

The Plaintiff is age 44 and in good health.   She graduated from high school and did one year at a community college.   She worked briefly during the marriage as a bus driver, then quit shortly after the child was born and then 3 years ago returned to that job.

The Defendant is 48 years old and in good health.   During most of the marriage he worked in construction and was self-employed.   He worked and still works for the Plaintiff's father and does other side jobs.   He is also employed at Sikorsky Aircraft.

The Plaintiff testified that the marriage was rocky from the beginning.   There were allegations that the Defendant was having affairs, there were instances of domestic violence, on the part of both parties.   All of these allegations were present during the entire time of the marriage.   There were also money problems from the beginning which added to the tensions in the marriage.   The parties have been able to live in the manner they have due in large part to the generosity of the Plaintiff's parents.   The Defendant and Plaintiff never filed joint tax returns because the Defendant owes the IRS a large sum of money, that was true from the start of the marriage.   The Plaintiff turned over all financial issues to the Defendant.   He spent money in a reckless manner throughout the marriage.   Numerous times the household utilities were turned off.   The Defendant's testimony was that he spent $30,000 to $40,000 per year on go cart activities for the minor child from the time the child was age 5.

The Plaintiff's parents were responsible for the financial stability of this couple.   They provided a house for the parties to live in, they paid the mortgage on that house when after 2–3 years the Defendant stopped paying the mortgage, they paid the mortgage off entirely, they paid to have major renovations done to the house.   They continue to pay the taxes and insurance on the house.   They paid off the loans on the parties' automobiles, they paid for additional items related to the child go cart activities.   They continue to provide financial support to the Plaintiff on a reoccurring and continual basis.   There is no expectation that they will stop their generosity to their daughter.   In fact the defendant continues to do work for the Plaintiff's father in his construction business.

The Defendant, as previously stated, is employed at Sikorsky Aircraft.   He is employed for 32 hours a week and gets paid for 40 hours a week.   His hourly wage is $29.03.   The Defendant testified that he does not work a full 32–hour week.   This is his choice.   He may work 12–17 hours a week.   The reason that the Defendant gave was that he was exhausted from doing the side jobs in construction.   Last year he earned a little over $20,000.00 from working for his father-in-law, in 2010 approximately $10,000.   The Defendant failed to report what he earned from the additional side jobs he has had.   At first he testified that he was not paid for any other jobs.   Then he testified that he did do other jobs, but they were for barter.   He has no idea of the value of that work.   He stated that the goods he received for the barter work was for the child's go cart activities.   Needless to say, he did not report this as income.   When asked if the side job income was equal to or higher than the monies he would have earned from a full week at Sikorsky, he answered they were not.   The Defendant also testified that he used to get overtime, but that none is available to him now, due to the economic situation of his employer.

The reason for the breakdown of the marriage rests with both parties.   The continuing financial irresponsibility of the Defendant, the allegations of any affairs he may have had led to the breakdown.   However, the final break was due to the Plaintiff telling the Defendant in April 2010 that she was having feelings for another person and needed space to sort out those feeling.   It was after that admission by the Plaintiff that the Defendant told the Plaintiff that in the early years of their marriage he had indeed had an affair.   The parties attempted counseling, but the anger and damage done by the Plaintiff's admission effectively ended this marriage.   The Plaintiff's romantic interest now stays at the Plaintiff's house, in the guest bedroom 4–5 nights a week.   That party does not contribute to the financial expenses of the household, nor does that party help in any effective way in the management of the house, such as cleaning, etc.   Therefore, the Plaintiff's financial situation is not affected positively by the overnights that party does.

The Defendant's 23–year–old son, from a previous marriage, also lives with the Plaintiff and contributes nothing financially to the household.   He has lived with the Plaintiff and Defendant during a large part of the marriage.

The court finds that the Defendant has the earning capacity of a 40–hour week at Sikorsky with an hourly wage of $29.03.   Pursuant to the Guidelines, the order of support would be $147.00 per week.   However, the court also finds that the Defendant has an earning capacity higher than that amount due to the work he does for his father-in-law and the barter jobs that he does, which amount the court finds to be $300.00 per week, based upon his previous years of income and also recognizing that he would not be required to work the amount of hours that he had been on those extra jobs.

The court also finds that the Plaintiff has continuing and reoccurring gifts from her parents.   They effectively provide a house for her to live in and a car to drive.   They provide her with money for vacations and other purposes.   The court also finds that at this time the Plaintiff is not cohabiting as defined by statute with her romantic interest, since there is no financial contribution to her from that person.

The Court finds that residence requirements have been satisfied and neither party has been the recipient of public assistance.   All pertinent criteria outlined in Chapter 815j of the General Statutes were considered by the court in the entry of the following orders as well as the evidence, testimony and claims of law made by the parties.

PENDING MOTIONS:

At the time of trial 3 motions were pending which the court shall address first:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt (# 123) dated January 3, 2012.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is in arrears of the pendente lite order of alimony in the amount of $200.00 per week and child support in the amount of $200.00.   At the time the motion was filed the Plaintiff claimed an arrears of $610.00.   Presently she claims there is due $210.00.   She is also claiming attorney fees.   The Defendant has had knowledge of this order and the ability to pay this order.   By reducing his hours at Sikorsky and reducing his income, he has willfully disregarded his orders.   The court finds the Defendant in contempt and orders he pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $210.00 within 30 days of this order.   The court also grants attorneys fees in the amount of $1,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff's attorney at the rate of $250.00 per month.

(2) Defendant's Motion for Modification of Child Support (# 125) and Alimony (# 126) both dated January 19, 2012.

Pursuant to the orders entered below, the Motions are respectively dealt with below, effective the date of these orders

DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

A decree dissolving the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown shall enter on February 22, 2012.

RESTORATION OF BIRTH NAME

The Plaintiff's birth name of McHugh is restored to her.

ALIMONY

Having found that the Defendant has an earning capacity of $15,000 in addition to the salary from the 40–hour week at Sikorsky, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff alimony in the amount of $250.00 per week, for a period of 8 years, terminated sooner by the death of either party, the Plaintiff's remarriage or cohabitation as defined by law and C.G.S. Sec 46b–86(b).  The length of the alimony is non-modifiable.

The Plaintiff shall pay no alimony to the Defendant.

CUSTODY

The parties have agreed and stipulated that they shall have joint legal custody of their minor child, physical custody of the child to the Plaintiff, with the rights of flexible, liberal and reasonable parenting time to the Defendant.

CHILD SUPPORT

The Defendant shall pay child support in the amount of $147.00 per week.   This is based upon the Defendant having an earning capacity of $1,361. per week.   Therefore the court finds that application of the guidelines is inappropriate and inequitable based on the fact that he could be working the full 32 hours at Sikorsky and be paid for the full 40–hour week.

The obligation of the Defendant to pay child support shall terminate when the child reaches the age of 18 years, marries, dies, becomes employed full time being no longer in high school or ceases to reside with the Plaintiff under circumstances wherein the Plaintiff is no longer furnishing the child's support or otherwise becomes emancipated, whichever first occurs.   However, if the child has reached the age of 18 years and is still a full-time high school student and continues to reside with the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall continue to pay child support as, specified above, until the child completes the 12th grade or attains the age of 19, whichever first occurs.

MEDICAL INSURANCE AND EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES FOR MINOR CHILD

The Defendant shall continue to provide medical dental insurance for the minor child through his employment, at his cost until the child reaches the age of 26 sooner becomes emancipated, for as long as the law allows.   If said insurance no longer is available, the Plaintiff shall provide same if available through her employment, if it is available reasonable cost.   If neither party has medical dental insurance available at the reasonable cost, they shall seek to have the child insured under HUSKY.   Any unreimbursed or uncovered medical expenses shall be split according to the guidelines 40% to the Plaintiff and 60% to the Defendant.

The provisions of 46b–84c shall apply.

The parties shall equally share the cost of extracurricular activities of the child that are agreed to in writing by the parties.   The cost of the child's participation in his go cart/racing shall not be split between the parties.   If the Defendant wishes, he may continue to finance same.

POST–SECONDARY EDUCATION OF MINOR CHILD

The parties have agreed and stipulate that if they had remained an intact family, they more than likely would have provided for the post-secondary education of their child.   Therefore, they request and the court orders, that the court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to C.G.S. Sec 46b–56c.

PARENTING EDUCATION CLASS

Neither parent has completed the parenting education class.   Therefore, the court orders that they do so by April 30, 2012.   If they have successfully completed the program, and the form is in the court file indicating that fact, they are excused from their court appearance on April 30, 2012.   If they failed to complete the program, they must appear in court on April 30, 2012.   If they fail to appear on that date, a capias shall issue to bring them before the court.

TAXES

The parties shall share taking the child as a dependent for income taxes purposes.   As long as the Defendant is current on his order for child support he shall claim the child in odd-numbered years and the Plaintiff in even-numbered years.   However, if the Defendant fails to file taxes in his designated year, the Plaintiff shall claim the child as her returns.

The parties shall exchange IRS forms each year by April 15th for as long as there is an order of child support and/or alimony.   By January 15th of odd-numbered years, the Defendant shall inform the Plaintiff if he is entitled to take the child as a dependent.

MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR WIFE

At her sole cost, the Wife shall be entitled to medical/dental insurance benefits under the Defendant's policy pursuant to COBRA rights.   The Defendant shall cooperate with the Plaintiff in obtaining same.

LIFE INSURANCE

The Defendant shall maintain life insurance in the amount of $100,000 naming the Plaintiff as beneficiary for as long as he is obligated to pay alimony to the Plaintiff.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

The parties have not asked the court to enter any orders as to their personal property, except as otherwise provided herein.

BANK ACCOUNTS AND 401K

Each party shall retain their respective bank accounts free and clear of any claim by the other.

The Defendant has a 401K in the approximate amount of $4,000.   Previously the Defendant withdrew $3,200 from that account for his own purposes.   Therefore, the Defendant shall within 30 days from the date of this order, transfer to the Plaintiff all of the sums remaining in the 401K. This shall be accomplished by a rollover of this account to the Plaintiff or if a QDRO is needed, the parties shall equally share the cost for same and the court retains jurisdiction to effectuate same.

DIVISION OF DEBTS

The Husband shall be solely responsible for the debt on the Plaintiff's financial affidavit to Torno Lumber in the approximate amount of $8,300.   This is a debt incurred by the Defendant, yet the account was put in the Plaintiff's name.   The Defendant shall make arrangements with Torno Lumber for payment of same.   If he can put the debt in his name, he is ordered to do so, if not he shall indemnify and hold the Plaintiff harmless from same.

Otherwise each party shall be responsible for the debts listed on their financial affidavits.  ATTORNEY FEES

Each party shall be solely responsible for their respective attorney fees, except as otherwise provided herein for the Motion for Contempt.

MISCELLANEOUS

Each party shall sign any necessary documents to effectuate the orders contained herein if necessary.

FRANKEL, SJ.

Frankel, Deborah Kochiss, J.