Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Coleen Bell Le Pere v. Sharon M. Huffman
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This dissolution of marriage case was tried before the court on May 15, 2013. Ms. Huffman was represented by counsel, Ms. Bell le Pere represented herself. Both parties testified. No other witnesses were called. The court has carefully considered the statutory criteria as well as the applicable case law regarding the dissolution of marriage, alimony, property issues, and other attendant issues. The court has heard all the evidence, observed the demeanor of the parties, and reviewed the exhibits. Based upon all the credible evidence, the court makes the following findings.
The court has jurisdiction over the marriage. The plaintiff resided within the state of Connecticut continuously for at least twelve months prior to commencing this action.
The parties met over the internet in July of 2010, and after a brief period of correspondence, they met in person in September of 2010. The parties were married on October 8, 2010 in East Haven, Connecticut. There were no children issue of the marriage and no children born to either party since the date of the marriage. Neither Ms. Bell le Pere nor Ms. Huffman is currently pregnant. This was the first marriage for Ms. Huffman and the second marriage for Ms. Bell le Pere, who has one minor child from a previous relationship. Neither party has been the recipient of public assistance other than Ms. Bell le Pere's coverage under the state HUSKY plan.1
Ms. Bell le Pere is 52 years old and currently unemployed. At the time of the marriage she had recently commenced part-time employment as a Spanish teacher in the New Haven public schools. She was not certified, however, and was replaced by a certified teacher in November 2012. Since that time, she has continued to be unemployed. Her current net income is $480.00 per week which represents $155.00 per week in unemployment and $325.00 in child support for her one minor child from a previous marriage. Her health is good. She has a bachelor's degree in psychology and some graduate courses. She has no retirement accounts or savings.
Ms. Huffman is 59 years old and employed for the last 33 years as a regulatory compliance analyst with Guardian Insurance. Her net income is $1,037.77 per week. At the time of the marriage Ms. Huffman rented a residence in Manhattan, which she has continued to rent and maintain as her principal place of residence. Ms. Huffman also acquired a summer home in upstate New York prior to the marriage and she has a retirement account through her employment valued at $177,664.65 as well as a checking and savings account.
At the time of the marriage, Ms. Bell le Pere was paying rent on a condominium. She indicated to Ms. Huffman that her landlord wanted her to either buy the condominium or she would have to move out. Ms. Huffman borrowed $40,000.00 against her 401(k) to purchase a home in East Haven. The parties intended that Ms. Bell le Pere would pay the mortgage on the new property as well as the insurance in that the mortgage was approximately the same amount as Ms. Bell le Pere had been paying in rent previous to the marriage. Although there were some differences in the parties' testimony as to the parties understanding regarding who was to pay for the costs associated with the house, the court finds that the credible testimony warrants a finding that the costs associated with the new residence were intended to be primarily borne by Ms. Bell le Pere. They had intended to both be named on the deed and mortgage, however, Ms. Bell le Pere's credit was such that the bank would not allow the mortgage to go through if Ms. Bell le Pere's name was listed, thus the deed and mortgage were solely in Ms. Huffman's name. Ms. Bell le Pere paid nothing toward the purchase. Ms. Bell le Pere moved into the house with her daughter in February of 2011, and Ms. Huffman resided with them on weekends, commuting from NYC.
Ms. Huffman was able, through her employment to add Ms. Bell le Pere to her health insurance as a domestic partner, she was not recognized as a spouse under Ms. Huffman's employer's plan. Ms. Bell le Pere had indicated that she would reimburse Ms. Huffman for the monthly premium, but she failed to do so and Ms. Huffman paid all the costs for Ms. Bell le Pere's insurance during the period of coverage.
Around March of 2011, the relationship began to unravel. Ms. Bell le Pere expressed periods of anger and violence that scared Ms. Huffman and she began to seek domestic violence counseling. Although there were no incidents of physical injury, Ms. Bell le Pere made frequent threats of physical violence, threw objects when she became angry and destroyed personal belongings of Ms. Huffman that had particular meaning, such as a bible that belonged to Ms. Huffman' s now deceased mother. Ms. Huffman left the residence in the end of May 2011. Ms. Bell le Pere continued to reside in the residence and attempted to reunite with Ms. Huffman. In July of 2011, the parties reunited briefly to try to work out their relationship. Within a few weeks, problems erupted again. In December of 2011, Ms. Huffman left the residence for good. In February of 2012, Ms. Bell le Pere filed this action and thereafter the residence was listed for sale by agreement of the parties. Ms. Bell le Pere continued to reside in the residence with her daughter until the property was sold in December of 2012. From February of 2012 until the sale, Ms. Huffman paid the utilities and mortgage payments on the residence. The house was sold for $3,000.00 less than Ms. Huffman paid for it in February of 2011. The proceeds from the sale are currently being held in escrow. The total proceeds are $10,796.88, however, $2,500.00 of that is being held for the buyer to complete agreed upon repairs.
Sometime in January of 2012, the pipes froze in the East Haven residence, and Ms. Bell le Pere paid for some of the repairs. She seeks reimbursement for those repairs, claiming a total of $5,471.00, despite the fact that Ms. Bell le Pere had sole use and occupancy of the home at that time and from February of 2012, she resided there rent free until December of 2012. Ms. Bell le Pere also seeks alimony for a period of one year in the amount of $210.00 per month to make up the difference between her previous-to-the-marriage rent and her current rent. Amazingly, she argues that she made some, not all, mortgage payments in 2011 and, since the mortgage was not in her name, she had no legal obligation to do so, ignoring the fact that she and her daughter resided there most of the time, without Ms. Huffman during 2011, and exclusively during 2012. Her arguments defy logic and certainly do not in any manner comport with the statutory criteria for the award of alimony.
Ms. Bell le Pere also seeks reimbursement for out of pocket medical expenses. Ms. Bell le Pere was covered under Ms. Huffman's health insurance as a domestic partner. The company plan did not recognize their marriage and in 2012 an audit was ordered to ensure that covered dependents met the criteria for coverage. Ms. Huffman provided a copy of the valid marriage certificate and provided true information that the parties no longer resided together and were going through a divorce. The company discontinued Ms. Bell le Pere's coverage because she did not meet the criteria of a domestic partner in that she and Ms. Huffman no longer resided together. Ms. Bell le Pere argues that Ms. Huffman violated the automatic orders by allowing Ms. Bell le Pere to be discontinued. However, Ms. Bell le Pere provided no evidence that Ms. Huffman did anything other than that which was required by her employer.
The court finds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and hereby dissolves the marriage. The parties are declared single and unmarried. The court finds that Ms. Bell le Pere's behaviors and her repeated misrepresentations as to her willingness to accept financial responsibilities were the cause of the breakdown of the marriage. The court enters the following additional orders:
1. Neither party shall pay alimony to the other.
2. Each party shall be responsible for their own debts and each shall indemnify and hold the other harmless on any such debts.
3. Ms. Huffman shall be solely entitled to the net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence currently being held in escrow.
4. Each party shall be entitled to retain any and all personal property currently in their possession, free and clear of any claim by the other.
5. Each party shall be entitled to retain any and all assets currently in their respective names free and clear of any claim by the other.
BY THE COURT
Maureen M. Murphy Judge
FOOTNOTES
FN1. The state of Connecticut has indicated that it has no interest in this matter.. FN1. The state of Connecticut has indicated that it has no interest in this matter.
Murphy, Maureen M., J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: FA124016342S
Decided: June 19, 2013
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)