Laleh Pouya v. Amir Pouya (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter was tried by the court on May 1, 2013.   The plaintiff and defendant testified and exhibits were introduced.

The court has considered all of the credible evidence presented to it and carefully considered the respective criteria for orders of custody, visitation, access, child support, health insurance, payment of children's medical expenses, alimony, property division and allocation of debts.   The court makes the following findings of fact and orders.

The parties were married on November 17, 1994 in Storrs, Connecticut.   One of the parties has lived in the state of Connecticut for more than one year prior to bringing this action.   The court finds it has jurisdiction over the marriage.

The following minor children have been born to the parties since the date of the marriage:

E. S.—date of birth November 18, 1995

C. A.—date of birth July 25, 1998.

No other minor children were born to the wife since the date of the marriage.   The wife applied for and was granted HUSKY medical insurance despite the fact that the husband maintained medical insurance through his employer for the entire family.

The court finds the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

FACTS

The wife is forty-one years old and in good health.   She received a master's degree in Public Health from the University of Connecticut in 2010.

Mrs. Pouya was employed in the husband's print/copy shop shortly after the couple married.   Her responsibilities grew and eventually she was manager/sole employee of the print shop until 2005.   Mrs. Pouya did not receive a salary while working for her husband's business but the profits supported the family.

The plaintiff was employed part-time with the Hispanic Health Counsel for six months in 2005 and then returned to school to obtain her masters degree in Public Health.   Mrs. Pouya testified the family was supported by the proceeds from her student loans from 2005–2009.¹

In 2009 the wife was employed by People's Bank as a Customer Service Assistant for eighteen months.   She earned $10+ per hour and quit this job in June 2011 to find employment in the public health field.   As of May 1, 2013 she had been unsuccessful in her job search, claiming she had applied for 500 jobs and was rejected due to lack of experience.

During the trial, for the first time, the plaintiff indicated she wished to relocate to the Maryland/Washington, D.C. area to find a job and help her daughter settle into her first year of college.   When questioned about plans for her son she indicated she would leave him in Connecticut with his father.

Mr. Pouya is fifty-three years old and in poor health.   He was hospitalized in early 2000 for twenty-one days with serious kidney and blood problems.   He experiences exhaustion due to his blood illness.   Mr. Pouya kidney's function is at twenty percent and when his kidney function reaches fifteen percent he will need dialysis.   He anticipates he will know within the next six months if his kidney function continues to decline.

The defendant was employed as a mental health II at Mansfield Training Center for two years and six months, from 1985–1987/1988.   In 1988 he was employed by Prudential Securities and Financial Services in South Windsor and simultaneously worked at Unclaimed Freight until 1994.   In 1994 Mr. Pouya opened up a print shop and copy center in Storrs and Willimantic.   He testified the business grossed $350,000–500,000 per year and his net take home, after expenses was less then $10,000.

Mr. Pouya purchased a commercial building on Main Street in Willimantic and worked on repairing the building from 2005–2009.   The copy/print business was closed.

In 2009 the defendant was employed part-time as a relief U.S. Postmaster in Pomfret.   He took this position as he was recovering from a bout of his blood disorder and kidney illness.   He was terminated from the position after six months.

In 2010 the husband worked for four months for the U.S. Census.   While unemployed Mr. Pouya took computer programming classes through the State of Connecticut and has been employed at CIGNA the past two years earning a gross yearly salary of $60,000 per year.

Trust

The home on Codfish Falls Road and lot on Molton Road were owned by the defendant prior to the marriage.   The husband's father had a mortgage on the property for $250,000 as a result of loans for immigration to the United States from Iran, college expenses and down payments on the home and lot.   When the defendant failed to repay these loans his father foreclosed on the property.   This resulted in the elder Mr. Pouya owning the home and lot.   After negotiations between father and son the home in 2000 was put into a trust for the benefit of the Pouya children.   The elder Mr. Pouya dictated the terms of the trust and was a trustee for five years.

In 2003 the Trust purchased 763 Main Street, Willimantic from the Town for $62,500.   The property came with a grant of $250,000 to improve the property. $100,000 was spent on asbestos removal and $150,000 to secure the structure.   There wasn't sufficient grant money to fix the entire roof and only a portion was repaired.

It was the defendant's intent to rent out twenty-two units, become a commercial/residential landlord and close the copy/print business.

The building was never completely renovated and had one tenant until August 2012 when the building was condemned.

Mr. Pouya blames the plaintiff for the condemnation of the building.   He testified that when she got exclusive possession of the family home she would make sure the Town condemned the building.

Mr. Pouya will be required to pay the $18,360 real estate tax bill before the Town will grant him permits to complete repairs to get the building out of condemnation.

In 2000 the Codfish Falls home was refinanced ($37,000 being due on the first mortgage at the time) and $89–98,000 was used to purchase and import Persian rugs from Iran. Approximately three hundred rugs remain and are located in a locked room in the condemned building.   The condition of the rugs is unknown.

Mr. Pouya maintains the three hundred rugs are owned by the Trust and Mrs. Pouya claims the Trust is a sham and the rugs are marital assets.

This action is complicated by other pending lawsuits.   Deutsche Bank v. Pouya, Amir, Pouya, Laleh, CV 08 5003055 is the foreclosure of the family home on 268 Codfish Falls Road, Storrs, Connecticut.   The foreclosure judgment is dated September 24, 2012 and a deficiency of $200,000± exists.   Deutsche Bank was informed by the plaintiff that the three hundred Persian rugs are a personal asset and Deutsche Bank has a PJR attachment on the rugs.

In 2005 the Codfish Falls property was again refinanced for an additional $37,000 at twelve percent interest.   The intent was to use the money to complete the repairs on the Main Street property so it could be fully rented and the rent repay the loan in one-two years.

The couple opened a rug store in the Main Street property in the fall of 2005 and began to sell rugs.   The cost of operating the store was high and it closed within twelve-eighteen months.

The last refinancing involved multiple Quit Claim deeds, one out of the trust to individual names and after refinancing back into the trust.   Unfortunately, after the 2005 second mortgage the Quit Claim back to the trust was filed before the Quit Claim out of the trust resulting in the real estate being titled to the couple as individuals rather than the trust.

Educational Support

The oldest child will graduate from high school in June 2013 and has been accepted to multiple colleges.   The defendant borrowed $750 from his 401k to pay the deposit for American University.   The family has been offered $16,000 in grants and scholarships.   The tuition and room and board total $53,000 leaving a $37,000 balance.   The plaintiff and daughter are determined that the child attend American University in the fall of 2013 but refuse to acknowledge that pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56c the court cannot order post-majority education beyond the cost of an in state resident attending the University of Connecticut living on campus or approximately $22,000 per year.   Given defendant's net income, child support and alimony obligations pendente lite he has $300 per week to support himself.   He has no permanent place to live and stays in motels and with friends.

The only available assets, 300 Persian rugs, is held up in litigation with Deutsche Bank. The plaintiff filed an action Docket No. CV 13 6006443 Pouya, Laleh v. Pouya, Amir to have the defendant removed as trustee of the Trust.   Finally, she testified under oath in the present case the Trust was a sham.   It is highly unlikely the two civil suits will be resolved in time to pay tuition for the 2013–2014 school year.

Additionally, the oldest child received several offers of full scholarships that would cover tuition, room and board and fees.   She turned the scholarships down and there is no viable source for the balance of $37,000 for American University.   The court expressed its concerns that this talented child would not be attending college in the fall of 2013 unless her parents persuaded her to accept one of the full scholarships she was offered.   Mother was unable or unwilling to change the child's mind despite the harsh financial realities the family faces.

Custody

The oldest child will be attending college in the fall of 2013.   Mrs. Pouya declared during the trial that she would be relocating to the Washington, D.C. area after school ended for the summer.   The court pointed out that this decision was without notice to father, opposing counsel or the court.   Additionally, no Guardian Ad Litem was in place to represent the interest of the youngest child and no Family Relations or private custody evaluation had been ordered.   Mrs. Pouya testified she would leave her son in Connecticut with his father because her daughter was fragile and needed her mother.   The court has serious concerns about this “plan” given father's lack of stable home and mother's lack of a job.

ORDERS

I. The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

II. Custody:  The plaintiff and defendant shall have joint custody of the minor children.

a. If mother relocates from Connecticut father shall have primary physical custody of C. until further court order.

b. If mother remains in Connecticut father shall have reasonable and liberal visitation with C..   Dates and times for father's access will be arranged between father and son taking into consideration the child's academic, extracurricular and social activities.

c. If mother relocates from Connecticut she shall have reasonable and liberal access to C. whenever she is in Connecticut.   Once she has a home C. shall spend alternating holidays and school vacations with mother.   The summer school vacation shall be divided with mother having the first half from two days after classes end to the midpoint of the summer school recess.   Father shall have the child for the second half of summer vacation.

III. Child Support

a.  If mother remains in Connecticut the husband shall pay the wife child support in the amount of $200 per week until E. reaches age eighteen per the Child Support Guidelines.   Child support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines will be automatically reduced to $147 per week commencing the week after E.'s eighteenth birthday.

b. If mother leaves Connecticut she shall pay the father child support in the amount of $0 per week until E. turns eighteen and thereafter $70.00 per week.   The court has assumed a minimum wage earning capacity for plaintiff.   The plaintiff shall inform the defendant within forty-eight hours of securing a full-time job.   The Child Support Guidelines will be recomputed and child support adjusted retroactively to the date of the plaintiff's first paycheck.

IV. Alimony

a.  The husband shall pay the wife alimony in the amount of $100 per week for a period of thirty-six months from the date of judgment.

Alimony shall terminate in thirty-six months, the plaintiff's or defendant's death, the plaintiff's remarriage or cohabitation pursuant to the statute.

Alimony is nonmodifiable as to term but modifiable as to amount.

b. The wife shall pay the husband alimony in the amount of $1 per year for a term of thirteen years.

Alimony paid by the wife to the husband shall be modifiable in the event the husband becomes disabled and is unable to work.

Alimony shall terminate in thirteen years, the death of either party, the husband's remarriage or cohabitation, per the statute.

V. Health Insurance

a.  The defendant shall maintain medical insurance for the benefit of the minor children as long as it is provided by his employer at a reasonable cost.

b. The plaintiff and defendant shall share medically necessary unreimbursed medical, dental, optical, orthodontic, and psychological expenses in accordance with the child support guidelines, currently 38% by mother and 62% by father

c. The plaintiff and defendant shall each be solely responsible for the cost of his/her medical insurance and unreimbursed medical expenses.

d. The husband shall cooperate with the wife if she elects to continue coverage under COBRA.   The wife shall be solely responsible for the cost.

e. If the State of Connecticut seeks reimbursement for the HUSKY premiums paid for the wife and minor children the wife shall be solely liable and shall hold the husband harmless and indemnified.   The court finds the wife applied for HUSKY knowing she and the minor children were covered by the husband's employer sponsored medical insurance.

VI. Property Settlement

a.  Each party will keep the property listed on his/her financial affidavit except the Persian rugs owned by the Trust and/or personally.

b. The personally owned Persian rugs located in the family home, removed from the home by either party shall be immediately returned.   Within thirty days of the date of judgment the rugs will be divided with the husband and wife each taking turns choosing a rug.   The wife shall be entitled to first choice.

c. The 300+ Persian rugs owed individually/by the trust will be divided if the civil court determines they are personal assets in the same manner as the above paragraph except the husband shall have first choice.

d. If the civil court determines the Persian rugs are a trust asset the trustees shall determine disposition of the rugs under the terms of the trust.

VII. Debts

The parties shall be solely liable for the debts listed on their respective Financial Affidavits and shall hold the other harmless and indemnified.

VIII. Personal Property

The husband shall have access to the family home to inventory the personal property.   The personal property on the inventory shall be divided in the same manner as described above for the division of the Persian rugs.

IX. Trusteeship

An action filed by the wife is pending regarding the removal of the husband as trustee.   This court is making no orders with regard to which party should remain as trustee.

X. Post–Majority Education

The court will retain jurisdiction to enter orders of post-majority educational support for the minor children.

The court is not entering post-majority educational orders at this time given the plaintiff's unemployment and the child support and alimony burdens on the defendant.   It is not known at present if the 300+ Persian rugs are trust assets (as alleged by the defendant) or personal assets (as alleged by the plaintiff).   Grounds to seek an educational support order will exist once ownership of these rugs is determined by the court in a separate lawsuit.

XI. Income Tax Dependency Deductions

The defendant shall be entitled to claim both children as dependants for federal and state income taxes in 2013.   Thereafter, if the wife earns income more than $25,000 she shall be entitled to take one child as a dependancy exception.   When only one child is eligible as a dependant the parties shall alternate with the husband having even years and the wife odd years.

XII. Automobiles

The wife shall have as her sole property the 1998 Jeep she is currently driving.   She shall be solely liable for any loans, insurance, registration and personal property taxes on the Jeep and shall hold the husband harmless and indemnified thereon.

The husband shall have as his sole property the Volvo S60 he is currently driving.   He shall be solely liable for any loans, insurance, registration and personal property taxes and shall hold the wife harmless and indemnified thereon.

XIII. Business

The husband shall be entitled to sole ownership of Pouya, Inc., GPX Int'l, Inc. and Marblehead, LLC listed as inactive businesses on his financial affidavit He shall hold the wife harmless and indemnified from any liabilities of the businesses.

XIV. Life Insurance

The defendant shall maintain his existing policy(ies) of life insurance naming the wife and minor children as beneficiaries for as long as he has an alimony, child support or post-majority support obligation.   The wife may be removed as a beneficiary when the husband's alimony obligation is terminated.

BY THE COURT,

Holly Abery–Wetstone

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The husband disputes this and claims she only made several mortgage payments..  FN1. The husband disputes this and claims she only made several mortgage payments.

Abery–Wetstone, Holly, J.