Cherise D. Field v. Richard C. Field (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The complaint in this action for dissolution of marriage, in which there are financial disputes, is dated September 4, 2012.   The plaintiff and defendant were married on April 14, 1979, at Manchester, Connecticut.   The plaintiff has resided in this state for a period of at least one year prior to bringing this action.   No minor children have been born to the plaintiff wife since the date of the marriage.   Neither party has been the recipient of public assistance.   The marriage has broken down irretrievably without prospect for reconciliation.

The plaintiff wife is fifty-eight years of age and she is self-employed as a cosmetologist.   She owns her own business, a beauty salon known as Society's Scissors.   She has gross weekly income of $913.52 and net weekly income of $684.52.   She has worked throughout the marriage.   She presently resides in the marital home located at 6 Cove Rest Pentway, Essex, Connecticut.   Each party pays one-half of the mortgage and taxes on the property.

The defendant husband is sixty-two years of age and he is a self-employed builder.   He has been so employed for many years and he has several established customers that regularly provide him work.   He has also been trained as a diesel mechanic and was so employed for several years in the early 1990s.   The husband's financial affidavit shows gross, and net, income of $510 per week.   He has expenses of $651 per week and debt that totals $6,619.   He presently resides in a cottage on Rogers Lake located at 51 Shore Dr., Old Lyme, Connecticut.   A one-half interest in this cottage is part of the marital estate.

During the course of the marriage both parties have received inheritances which have augmented the marital estate.   The wife received combined inheritances from her parents in the approximate amount of $400,000.   This money was received in the early 2000s.   It is undisputed that at least $100,000 of the inheritance was used to make substantial improvements to the marital home in Essex.   A substantial amount of the inheritance was also used to pay for the college expenses for the couple's son.   Except for two IRA accounts, and a life insurance policy, the balance of the inheritance was used by the parties in the course of the marriage.

The husband inherited a one-half interest in the Old Lyme cottage in 1982.   Record title of this one-half interest was later placed in the plaintiff wife's name alone.   The parties agree that this unencumbered property has a value of $195,000, resulting in a value for the one-half interest of $97,500.   The property is not presently winterized, however the husband intends to winterize the property over the summer, while he is living there.

To their credit, the parties are deeply committed to providing emotional and financial support to their grandson.   The wife testified that she wishes to retain the marital home so that she may provide a place for the grandson to live.   The husband testified that he desires alimony because he needs financial assistance in carrying for the grandson who lives with him.   As the court stated at the hearing, because the grandson is not issue of the marriage, it is unable to base orders of alimony and property upon considerations for the grandson.

Each party blames the other for the breakdown of the marriage.   The court concludes that both parties share equal responsibility for the breakdown of this marriage.

The court has carefully considered the provisions of General Statutes Section 46b–82 regarding alimony.   The husband seeks alimony from the wife in the amount of $100 per week.   Based upon the husband's skills as a builder, as well as his skills as a diesel mechanic, the court concludes that he is earning less income than he is capable of earning.   With his skills, the husband has the capacity to earn at least as much as the plaintiff earns from her business, which is approximately $47,000 per year.   Under the circumstances of this case, an award of alimony to either party is not appropriate.

The court has carefully considered the provisions of § 46b–81 regarding property assignment.   The primary marital asset is the home located at 6 Cove Rest Pentway.   The parties agree that it has a value of $358,000, is encumbered by a mortgage in the amount of $23,000, and has equity of $335,000.   As noted earlier, the Old Lyme cottage has a value of $97,500.   The wife has a Met Life policy in the face amount of $118,000 and a cash value of $26,000.   This policy was part of her inheritance.   She also has two IRA accounts which total $53,040.   Except for $2000 recently contributed by the wife, these accounts were also part of her inheritance.   The couple owns two boats which have a total approximate value of $12,000.   The total value of these assets which comprise the marital estate is $523,540.   The parties have entered into a stipulation dividing their tangible personal property.   The court notes that the boats are to be the property of the husband.

The court acknowledges that each party has an automobile, with little or no equity, and various small bank accounts.   Each party should retain possession of these items.

In formulating orders which assign the property in the marital estate, the court concludes that each party should retain those elements of their respective inheritance that presently exist.   To that end, the wife should receive the IRA accounts and the Met Life policy, and the husband should receive the Old Lyme cottage.

In assigning the marital home, the substantial contribution made by the wife from her inheritance cannot be ignored.   However, the labor contributed by the husband must be considered.   On balance, the scale tips slightly in favor of the wife.   The wife is assigned a 55 percent share of the equity and the husband is assigned a 45 percent share.   The wife expressed a willingness to refinance the home in order to stay in it.   The husband needs to receive his equity.   The orders are fashioned to provide the wife an opportunity to “buy-out” the husband's share.   If this is not possible, the property is to be sold.

As noted above, the total value of the specific assets assigned is $523,540.   The husband's 45% share of the equity in the marital home is $150,750.   That amount, together with the value of the Old Lyme cottage, $97,500, and the boats valued at $12,000, totals $260,250 or approximately 49.7% of the assigned marital estate.   The total value of the assets assigned to the wife is $263,290, or 50.3% of the marital estate.

ORDERS

1. The marriage is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

2. Each party is to retain the respective bank accounts, IRA accounts and insurance policies shown on their financial affidavits.

3. Each party is to retain the automobile shown on their respective affidavits.

4. The stipulation dated June 26, 2013 regarding personal property is approved and its provisions are made orders of the court.

5. Each party is to be responsible for payment of the debts shown on their respective affidavits and shall hold the other party harmless from said debts.

6. The plaintiff is to transfer her interest in 51 Shore Drive, Old Lyme, Connecticut to the defendant within 30 days.

7. The plaintiff shall retain title to 6 Cove Rest Pentway, Essex, Connecticut, provided she pay the defendant $150,750, for his equity interest, within sixty days of the date of judgment.   If a refinance is scheduled to close soon after sixty days from the date of judgment, the plaintiff should file the appropriate motion to extend the time for payment.   From the date of judgment, the plaintiff is to be solely responsible for the costs of maintaining the marital home, including payment of the mortgage and taxes.   If the plaintiff chooses not to refinance, or is unable to refinance, and thus cannot pay the defendant his share of the equity, the parties shall promptly list the property for sale.   Upon the sale of the property, the mortgage balance and the customary expenses of sale shall be deducted from the sale proceeds, resulting in net proceeds.   The plaintiff is to receive any tax adjustment in favor of the seller.   The parties shall divide the net proceeds as follows, 55% to the wife and 45% to the husband.   It is expected that the parties will discuss, and agree upon, the terms of sale.   The court will retain jurisdiction over the sale of the property.

DOMNARSKI, J.

Domnarski, Edward S., J.