Michael Skulczyck v. Robin Skulczyck (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION:  # 109.01, 109.02, 110, 111, 112, 113

Here, this action was commenced by writ, summons and complaint returnable on or about December 6, 2011.   This is a dissolution action commenced by Mr. Skulczyck against his wife, Robin Skulczyck.   The plaintiff is proceeding pro se, or as colloquially referenced now, on a self-represented basis.   The defendant is represented by attorney Sandy Moore of New London, Connecticut.   On or about February 8, 2012, the defendant filed a number of motions, each of which will be addressed herein.   Motion # 109.01 and # 109.02 are coded as defendant's motion (sic) for custody and child support, pendente lite.   Motion # 112 is defendant's motion for exclusive possession of marital residence, et al, pendente lite.   Motion # 113 is defendant's motion for referral to Family Relations for a full custody and access study, pendente lite.   Prior to the commencement of evidence on these motions, the parties entered into a signed stipulation resolving all these issues, pendente lite, which was approved by the court, Nazzaro, J.

The court is left with motion # 110 and # 111 to decide.   Motion # 110 is defendant's motion for alimony, pendente lite. # 111 is defendant's motion for payment of marital debt.   With respect to these two motions, the court observes that Section 46b–83 provides that the court may award alimony and support pendente lite from the date of filing of an application for same.   In making an order for alimony pendente lite the court shall consider all the factors enumerated in Section 46b–82 with exceptions.   Section 46b–82 provides as follows:

In determining whether alimony shall be awarded, and the duration and amount of the award, the court shall hear the witnesses, if any, of each party, except as provided in subsection (a) of section 46b–51, shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the annulment, dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties and the award, if any, which the court may make pursuant to section 46b–81, and, in the case of a parent to whom the custody of minor children has been awarded, the desirability of such parent's securing employment.

Here, the court heard testimony from each party and reviewed the financial affidavits of each party.   Mr. Skulczyck testified the parties were married September 27, 1999.   They have two children of the marriage, Angel who is eleven and Juliana who is four years old.   The plaintiff purchased the former marital residence at Ricky Lane in Oakdale, Connecticut.   On his affidavit, the plaintiff values the property at $250,000.   The house is overleveraged to $260,000, according to the plaintiff.   Mrs. Skulczyck occupies the home with the two minors and five other children from another or other relationships.   Mr. Skulczyck vacated the dwelling in September 2011.   The plaintiff is a supervisor of table games at the Mohegan Sun Casino where he has worked for fifteen years.   He reports net income in the amount of $913 per week.   Significantly, he states in his affidavit he is servicing some $126,000 debt as a result of a failed pool hall, restaurant, and bar business in Uncasville formerly known as the “Break room.”   He states that after paying agreed upon child support in the amount of $220 per week, he is left with $693.   The plaintiff also works a second job as a childcare worker at the New England Adolescent Treatment Center.   The plaintiff denies living with a lady friend, Gidget Farina, in Jewett City. The plaintiff claims to live with his parents whom he pays $200 per week in rent for the last four weeks.

Mrs. Skulczyck states that prior to leaving, the plaintiff always paid the mortgage, insurance and taxes which amount to $1,453 per month.   Since leaving, she says, he has not paid this debt on time.   In addition, the defendant pays for electricity on the residence.   She worries about losing the home (to foreclosure).   The defendant is a member of the Mohegan Tribe.   As such, she receives an annual stipend, she says, of $23,800.   She also receives $47 per week from social security administration and $9,492 annually from the State of Connecticut as a result of rearing an adopted child.   In addition, the defendant receives income from at least two of her children who are also tribal members who receive tribal stipends.   She reports a net weekly wage of $532.   Her weekly expenses total $950.   Clearly, the defendant cannot meet her debts and obligations as they become due.   The plaintiff clearly should pay certain of the living expenses pendente lite for the defendant and his two minor children.

Conclusion

The court grants the defendant's pendente lite motions for alimony and payment of marital debt. (# 110, # 111.)   Taking into account all of the statutory factors and those set forth in C.G.S. §§ 46b–82 and 46b–83, the court orders the plaintiff to pay to the defendant, pendente lite $190 per week alimony.   This amount represents roughly one-half the weekly costs of the mortgage, hazard insurance, taxes and electricity used at Ricky Lane in Oakdale.   The order is retroactive to December 6, 2011, the date this action was filed.   The plaintiff shall be given credit for $200 paid on or about September 2011 and an additional $200 paid January 5, 2012.  (Exhibit A.)

By the Court,

Nazzaro, J.

Nazzaro, John J., J.