Ruma Chowdhury v. Masiat Murakib (2013)

DECISION RENDERING JUDGMENT

On March 10, 2011, the plaintiff-wife filed a Complaint in this court for the dissolution of her marriage to the defendant-husband.   She sought a division of their property and debts, alimony, child support, primary physical and sole custody of their minor children.   The Return Date was March 15, 2011.   Counsel for the wife appeared on March 10, 2011.

The husband was served in hand by a state marshal on March 4, 2011 with a copy of the original Writ, Summons, Complaint, Notice of Automatic Court Orders and a Summary of the Automatic Court Orders.   Counsel for the husband appeared on March 25, 2011.   He filed an Answer and a Cross Complaint on April 5, 2011.   He requested a fair division of property and debts, joint legal custody of the minor children, visitation with the minor children, and a parenting responsibility plan.

The wife alleged March 9, 1995, as the date of their marriage, in her Complaint.   The husband alleged the same date in his Cross Complaint as the date of their marriage.   No Amended Complaint or Cross Complaint was filed by either party.   A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed for the minor children on July 20, 2011.   The GAL appeared on September 15, 2011.

After status conferences, pre-trials, mediations, special master's conferences, and pendente lite hearings, none of which were successful, the matter was continued and assigned to this trial court for a limited contested final hearing.   The wife appeared for trial with her attorney who represented her throughout.   The husband appeared for trial with his attorney and was represented throughout.   The trial commenced on June 27, 2012.   It was continued to July 18, 2012, and thence on April 30, 2013, May 1, May 22, May 29, May 31, June 10, June 11, and June 19, 2013, whereupon it concluded.   The wife and husband each testified.   English is their second language.   Each of them is fluent in the English language.   Neither party required or requested the assistance of an interpreter.   The GAL was called by the wife as a witness and testified.   No other witness was called by either party.   The wife introduced numerous exhibits.   The husband introduced several exhibits.   The GAL introduced two exhibits.   At the conclusion of the trial, each of the parties were requested to submit proposed findings of facts and written arguments in support of their claims for relief by July 12, 2013.   The parties filed their posttrial submissions on July 12, 2013.

FINDINGS

After hearing, and a careful review of the credible and relevant evidence offered during the trial, and a review of the judicially noticed court records, the court finds the following.

The wife was married on March 9, 1995, in Bangladesh to the defendant by his prior name of Mohamed M. Hussain and her birth name of Ruma Chowdhury.   She has resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for at least twelve months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint.   There are three (3) minor children that are issue of the marriage.   They are Sidrat Ali (formerly known as Sidrat Masiat), born on December 20, 1995;  Adyeat Masiat, born on November 8, 2001;  and Nedaat Masiat born on February 25, 2008.   There is no other child that is issue of this marriage or that has been born to the wife since the date of the marriage.   The wife is not pregnant.

The wife has received food stamps from the state of Connecticut.   She and the minor children are current recipients of medical assistance from the state of Connecticut.   The state of Connecticut has an interest in this action.   The Assistant Attorney General appeared as a party on September 7, 2011, pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b–55.   The Assistant Attorney General filed Prayers for Relief on July 6, 2012 and Proposed Orders on April 18, 2013.   Amended Proposed Orders were filed on April 30, 2013.   The State requested that its Amended Proposed Orders be entered for the benefit of the state of Connecticut.   The parties do not object to the relief requested by the Assistant Attorney General for the state of Connecticut in its Amended Proposed Orders.

This is the first marriage for each of the parties.   They have been married for 18 years.   The wife vacated the marital home with the children and the husband's nephew Nadar Ali, on March 3, 2011.   Since then they have continuously lived separate and apart from one another.   There is no reasonable hope of reconciliation.   The marriage has broken down irretrievably.   The allegations of the complaint are found to be true.   This court has jurisdiction over the marriage of the parties.

The parties were born and raised in Bangladesh.   It had been arranged by their families, when wife was 18 years of age, for them to marry when the wife reached 20 years of age.   They were married on March 9, 1995, in Bangladesh.   She was 20 and he was 30 years of age.   She was living in Bangladesh and he lived in the U.S. He returned to Bangladesh for the marriage.   Neither had met, seen or spoken to the other before they were married.   She knew that he had immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and was residing in New York as permanent resident.   He returned to New York about a month after they were married.   She remained in Bangladesh.   She expected him to arrange for her to come to the U.S. sometime in the future.   He periodically sent money to her and to her family between March 1995 and December 1995.   In December 1995, he returned to Bangladesh for the birth of their son Sidrat.   He returned to the U.S. three months after Sidrat was born.   The wife and Sidrat remained in Bangladesh.   She stayed in the village with her mother some of the time and sometimes she stayed with the husband's family in their village.   He continued to send money to Bangladesh to the wife, her family, and sometimes to his family until 1997.   Approximately two years into the marriage, he made arrangements for the wife, their son Sidrat, and his nephew Nadir Ali to come to the U.S. It was at this time that he caused Sidrat's surname to be changed from Masiat to Ali, and the wife's date of birth to be changed from 7/22/74 to 7/22/72, and the date of their marriage to be changed from 3/9/95 to 1/24/92.   The wife arrived in the U.S. in August 1997.   She, Sidrat and Nadar resided with the husband in New York. She spoke no English at that time.   They moved to Connecticut in July 2002.   The husband sent $7,500 to the wife's brother in Dubai for her mother in 2007.

The wife is 39 years of age.   She completed two years of high school in Bangladesh.   She has not completed high school or equivalent level of education.   Nor has she had any further formal education or training.   The husband is 48 years of age.   He received a high school diploma in Bangladesh.   He attended LaGuardia Community College in New York. Although he represented on an employment application in December 2000 that he graduated from Chitagton University in 1987 with a Bachelor's degree in accounting, he does not have a degree in accounting nor did he graduate from Chitagton University or LaGuardia Community College.   He has in fact not received an Associate's or any other degree.   He is licensed in New York to drive a taxi.   He has continually renewed and maintained his taxi driver's license since 1989.   The husband became a U.S. citizen in 1997.   The wife became a U.S. citizen in 2001.   She reads, writes and speaks English.   Each of them is in reasonably good health and is able to work.

Throughout the marriage the wife has been employed periodically and part-time in minimum wage jobs at Burger King, Wendy's and Lord and Taylor.   She has an earning capacity of $330 per week based on the current minimum wage of $8.25 and a 40–hour work week.   She has made and is continuing to make reasonable and diligent efforts to find gainful employment.   She is currently working part-time, and as needed, as a substitute day care assistant for the Team, Inc. Community Action Program.   She receives an average gross income of $135 per week with an average net income of $112 per week.   She has no other source of financial support than the husband.

The husband worked full-time in New York as a taxi driver until 1999.   He took a job in 1999 with IBM and was assigned to work in Florida.   He worked in Florida until 2000 when he “lost the job.”   After 6 months in Florida, he returned to New York and resumed driving a taxi full-time.   In December 2000, he was hired by a company (now known as the Emerson Company) to work full-time in Connecticut as a Senior Software Test Engineer.   He has been continuously employed by the Emerson Company since then.   He receives a gross income of $1,494.14 per week from Emerson.   His net income is $1,148 per week.   Medical and dental insurance is provided for him and his family by Emerson.   He continued to drive a taxi in New York on weekends after he was hired by Emerson.   He collects his fares and tips via cash, checks and credit cards.   The cash tips are unreported.   His average net income via cash, checks and credit cards, from driving a taxi on weekends was $450 per weekend.   He drove a taxi on weekends through 2012.   He has renewed his taxi license every year since 1989.   He has worked as a taxi driver every year since 1989.   He renewed his taxi license for 2013;  it will not expire until February 2014.   He has not worked as a taxi driver in 2013, except for one day in February 2013.   The court does not credit his unsubstantiated testimony that he ceased to drive a taxi in 2013 due to not being able to get a taxi and alleged back pain.

The parties entered into a “Nikahnama” (referred to as a marriage contract), also known as a marriage deed when they married.   Several versions of the Nikahnama were submitted into evidence.   None of the Nikahnamas submitted had been signed by either party.   In each of the Nikahnamas the amount promised was $4,815.40 and “half of the payment was to be ‘prompt’ and half ‘deferred.’  “ The wife seeks payment from husband.   The husband remitted monies to the wife and to her family on multiple occasions during their marriage.   He contends that the remittances satisfied any obligation he may have had to pay a dowry or the amount promised to the wife or her family, pursuant to the Nikahnama.   The court finds that the wife failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that parties entered into a valid marriage contract (Nikahnama), that the husband failed to pay the amount promised, and that she is owed $4,815.40 pursuant to the Nikahnama.

The husband exercised complete authority over their household's affairs and the wife's income.   He managed the monies earned or received by her.   She gave him her entire check.   He decided how much money she should have and then issue a check to her from their joint account.   He controlled their bank accounts, expenditures, preparation and submission of tax returns, business decisions, signing of legal documents and all of their “important papers.”   He routinely signed her name on credit card applications, tax returns, checks, and other documents.

The wife petitioned the court for a Restraining Order on March 2, 2011.   A Temporary Restraining Order immediately issued.   The husband was ordered ex parte order to not assault, threaten, harass, or abuse the wife;  to stay away from her residence, to not contact her in any manner;  and to stay 100 yards away from her.   The Order was extended to protect their minor children.   After a hearing on March 15, 2011, at which both parties were represented by counsel, the orders were extended to September 15, 2011.   In September 2011, it was extended to March 15, 2012, and modified to allow the husband supervised visits with the children at Southern Connecticut State University.   On March 15, 2012, by agreement of the parties, the Restraining Order as modified was to continue to September 6, 2012.   In September 2012, it was extended to by the court, pursuant to agreement of the parties, until the conclusion of the trial to dissolve their marriage.   The wife continues to fear the husband and requests that the Restraining Order as modified be made permanent.

The husband slapped, hit and beat their son Sidrat.   He yelled at the wife and threatened her with physical harm on many occasions.   He took a knife from the kitchen and threatened to kill her.   He threatened to cut her head off.   He sexually assaulted her.   The wife's claims that the husband was controlling and emotionally and physically abusive to her are credible and substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence.   The court concludes that the husband is at fault for the marital breakdown.

Nedaat and Adyeat are respectively 5 and 11 years old.   They are residing with their mother and are doing well in school.   They have had over twelve weeks of supervised visits with their father at Southern Connecticut State University.   The visits went well.   There has been no visitation by the husband with the children subsequent to January 14, 2012.   Nedaat and Adyeat love their father.   They have a good relationship with him and want to see him.   Sidrat is 17 years of age.   He graduated from high school in June 2013.   He will be attending the University of Rhode Island in September 2013.   He does not have a good relationship with his father and has not had a good relationship with him for a long time.   He does not want to see him.

Neither party brought any significant asset into the marriage.   During the marriage, the wife purchased and the husband purchased jewelry, as a gift for the wife.   Upon vacating the marital home in March 2011, she took with her some jewelry including, some gold bangles, necklaces, earrings, a ruby ring with gold, and other 22 to 24 gold carat jewelry among other things.   She claims to have left diamond rings, a ring, and a pendant earring in the home.   The husband denies that the jewelry is in the home, that it was left in the home, and that he has no knowledge of its whereabouts.

The parties jointly purchased a lot in Bangladesh for $28,386.58 in July 2005.   The lot is undeveloped, of an unknown size and is located in a flooded area.   Presently, it is physically and literally underwater.   The wife had received $4,500 as a settlement award for a motor vehicle accident she had in 2002.   The net funds were deposited into their joint account.   The husband used some of the settlement proceeds to purchase the lot in Bangladesh.   The parties stipulated that its current fair market value and net equity is $40,000.   The wife wants the lot sold and the net proceeds divided.   The husband wants to keep the lot.   The wife also received a settlement of $2,700 for a second motor vehicle accident she had in December 2007.   The net funds were also deposited into their joint account.   The husband controlled the joint account.   The wife accessed the account only with the husband's express permission.

The husband purchased the marital home on Summer Street in Derby, Connecticut in July 2002, for $160,000.   He acquired it in his sole name with marital funds and mortgage of $155,000.   A home equity mortgage in the amount of $65,000 was obtained by the husband in 2005.   The home equity loan was used to purchase windows and a heating system for the home, to send some money to the plaintiff's mother, and to finance a family trip to Bangladesh.   Twenty-one thousand dollars was stolen from the husband at the airport.   Title to the marital home continues to be in the husband's sole name.   Its current fair market value is $163,000.   The balance owed to GMAC on the first mortgage is $163,000.   The balance due on the home equity mortgage is $50,000.   The property has negative equity.   The first mortgage and the home equity mortgage are in the husband's sole name.   The wife has been residing in an apartment in Derby with their three children since she vacated the marital home in March 2011.   The husband's nephew Nadar returned to Bangladesh in June 2011.   She admittedly can't afford the marital home and no longer wants it.   The husband continues to reside in the home with his sister and her four children.   His brother, sister-in-law and their two children and another of his sisters, her husband and their six children have also resided in the home with the husband since the wife moved out.   He wants to keep the home and continue to live there.

The husband has a 401K plan into which he had contributed $84.26 every pay period until the spring of 2012.   In 2008, he took a loan against the Plan for $20,000.   As of March 31, 2012, there was a balance of $73,986.61 in the Plan. In March 2012, he applied for a second loan against the Plan. He was approved to obtain $25,000.   There was still $5,000 due on the first loan.   It had to be paid before he could receive a second loan.   He borrowed $5,000 from a “friend” to pay off the balance due on the first loan.   He deposited the entire proceeds of $25,000 into his account at People's Bank. Thereafter, he wrote and issued eight personal checks to friends and relatives, between March 30, 2012 and April 2, 2012, totaling $21,520.   The checks were purportedly issued to repay personal loans that had been made to him.   Only three of the eight people he claims to have repaid had been included as a creditor on any of his financial affidavits.   There is no documentation to substantiate any of the professed loans.   The wife claims the second loan for $25,000 was made in violation of the Automatic Orders served upon him on March 4, 2011.   She requests that he be sanctioned monetarily.   The loan did not decrease the value of the husband's 401K plan, nor did the marital portion of the husband's 401K plan decrease as a result of the loan.   The husband has dutifully complied with his obligation to repay the loan.   The court in the exercise of its discretion imposes no sanction.

The husband utilized numerous credit cards he acquired in the wife's name, without her consent or knowledge, including a Juniper Barclay Master Card, an HSBC Master Card, two Chase cards, two Discover Cards and a CITI Bank card.   He used the cards, among other things, primarily to access funds to make expenditures for members of his family (other than the plaintiff and their children);  to repay loans made to him by others;  to make loans to others;  for gambling expenses and to cover his gambling losses.   His gambling losses at the Mohegan Sun Casino exceeded $88,000.   His gambling losses at the Foxwoods Casino exceeded $110,000.   Bank withdrawals of cash were made by him at the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Casinos exceeding $1,800.   As a result of his use of the credit cards there is an unknown but significant amount of credit card debt in the wife's sole name, which she did not incur and was not for their joint or household benefit.

On April 11, 2011, the husband was ordered to pay to the wife $66.80 per week until a pendent lite arrearage of $918 for alimony and child support was satisfied in full.   A wage execution was issued to secure the payment.   The wage execution for the $66.80 per week continued long after the arrearage of $918 had been satisfied in full.   As of June 13, 2013, $7,481.60 had been withheld pursuant to the wage execution for the arrearage.   The husband has over paid the arrearage by $6,563.60.

In entering the following decree the court has taken into consideration among other things, the length of the marriage, the causes of the breakdown of the marriage, the age of the parties, their health, skills, employability, amount and sources of income, distribution of the marital assets, their resources, and their respective ability to acquire work and future income.   The court has considered all of the evidence in the light of the statutory factors in Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–81 and § 46b–82 and hereby enters the following orders:

ORDERS

DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

1. The marriage is hereby dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

PERIODIC ALIMONY

2. The wife is awarded periodic alimony in the amount of three hundred twenty-five ($325.00) dollars per week.   Alimony to the wife shall terminate upon the death of either party, remarriage of the wife, or pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b–86(b), whichever occurs first.   The amount of the alimony may be modified pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b–86(b).

3. The wife shall have a safe harbor of being able to earn an annual income of up to twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars before the husband may seek to modify the alimony based on the wife's earned income.

4. The Husband did not request alimony.   No alimony is awarded to the Husband.

5. After April 15 of each year the parties shall provide each other upon request with a copy of their W–2, federal and state tax return within fifteen (15) days of the request.

CUSTODY

6. The wife is awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of the minor children.

7. The husband shall be entitled to access and copies of all reports and information concerning the children's health, education, welfare, school records, medical reports and activities.   The wife shall notify all school, medical providers, and activity providers of this requirement if the husband has any difficulty in obtaining records or consulting with the children's teacher, doctors or activity providers.

8. The husband shall cooperate with and participate in the Southern Connecticut State University Family Clinic's Parenting Education Program.   He shall comply with any recommendations made by the Clinic.

9. The wife shall cooperate with the Southern Connecticut State University Family Clinic's Parenting Education Program.   She shall make the children Adyeat and Nedaat available to participate in the Clinic's program with the husband and comply with any recommendations made by the Clinic.

PARENTING TIME

10. The husband shall be entitled to have supervised therapeutic parenting time at the Southern Connecticut State University Family Clinic or other comparable facility with the minor child Sidrat Ali. He shall make arrangements with the Clinic and at his expense for supervised therapeutic parenting time with Sidrat.   The wife shall cooperate with the husband and the Clinic as necessary to make the arrangements.   He shall notify the wife in writing or cause the wife to be notified in writing by the Clinic of the final arrangements made.   He shall be responsible for facilitating the transportation of Sidrat to and from the Clinic and at his expense.

11. The husband shall be entitled to reasonable access by telephone with the minor children Nedaat and Adyeat.

12. During the summer the husband is entitled to parenting time with the minor children Nedaat and Adyeat every Tuesday and Thursday from 4:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m.

13. During the school year the husband is entitled to parenting time with the children Nedaat and Adyeat every Tuesday and Thursday from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.

14. The husband is entitled to parenting time with the children Nedaat and Adyeat overnight every other weekend from 10:00 a.m. Saturday until 8:00 p.m. Sunday evenings.

15. The husband is responsible for picking up and returning Nedaat and Adyeat to the wife.   He shall do a curbside pickup and return of them to the wife's residence.   He shall not go beyond the curb nor approach the wife's residence during the pickup and return of the children.

16. Each parent shall supervise the children doing their homework and other required school projects or activities during his or her parenting time.

17. In the event of an emergency involving the health or well-being of the minor children, the parent in whose care the children are shall immediately notify the other of the nature and details of the emergency.

18. Neither parent shall unreasonably withhold their consent for the minor children Nedaat and Adyeat to attend family gatherings, parties, and religious celebrations.

19. Neither party shall remove the minor children from the State of Connecticut for any period in excess of three (3) calendar days without the prior written consent of the other or an order of the court.

CHILD SUPPORT

20. No order of child support is entered for the minor child Sidrat.   He has graduated from high school, will be attending the University of Rhode Island in September 2013, and the parties are ordered to contribute to his post-secondary education as set forth in paragraph 23 below.

21. The husband shall pay, in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines, the sum of $250 per week to the wife as child support for the two (2) minor children Adyeat and Nedaat until they graduate from high school or attain 19 years of age, whichever occurs first.

TAX DEPENDENCY EXEMPTIONS

22. The husband shall be entitled to claim the minor children for a tax dependency exemption or credit until such time as the wife has an annual income of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars.   When the wife has an annual income of $25,000 she shall be entitled to claim the minor child Nedaat each year until there is only one child that remains eligible to be claimed.   When there is only one child that remains eligible to be claimed as a tax deduction, exemption or credit, the husband shall be entitled to claim the child for the odd-numbered tax years and the wife shall be entitled to claim the child as a tax dependency, exemption or credit for the even-numbered tax years.

CHILDCARE

23. The parties shall share equally the cost of childcare expenses incurred by the wife for the children so that she may engage in gainful employment.

SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

24. The parties shall share equally the cost of all of the children's school supplies and extracurricular activities, including necessary equipment, travel, meals and lodging expenses for the child which they mutually agree the child will participate.

POST–SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT

25. The parties acknowledge that had they remained an intact family, they would have paid for their children's undergraduate college expenses to the best of their abilities.

26. The parties shall contribute to the post-secondary education of Sidrat for a period of four academic years or until he has reached the age of twenty-three.   The wife shall contribute ten (10%) percent and the husband shall contribute ninety (90%) percent the cost of Sidrat's college educational expenses for a four-year degree, net of scholarships or grants, subject to the limitation that said cost shall not exceed the tuition for a full-time residential student at the University of Connecticut.

27. Notwithstanding the wife's request, the court does not order the husband to reimburse her $847 for college-related expenses she claims to have paid for Sidrat to date.

28. In the event the parties are unable to agree in the future as to the allocation of the undergraduate college educational expenses for Adyeat and Nedaat's, either party may file a motion for a determination of such allocation.

29. The court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56c regarding any future orders for the post-secondary education of the parties' children until the age of 23.

30. The wife shall provide and maintain, pursuant to the requirements of C.G.S. § 46b–84, medical, dental, and vision health insurance for the benefit of the minor children until they attain the age of 18, if it is available to her at a reasonable cost not to exceed five (5%) percent of her net income, including if available to her through her employment or union.   If a child attains age 18 and is a full-time student, she shall maintain the child's medical, dental and vision health insurance until the child attains age 23, marries, deceases, becomes employed full-time, or is no longer eligible to be carried by her at a reasonable cost.

31. In the event that medical, dental, and vision health insurance for the benefit of the minor children is not available to the wife at a reasonable cost, including through her employment or union then, in that event, the husband shall maintain such insurance as may be available to him at a reasonable cost, not to exceed seven and one-half (7 1/2%) percent of his net income, including if available through his employment or union, for the benefit of the children, until they child reach the age of 18, or the age of 23, if the child is a full-time student.

32. Any deductible, co-payment for a child, uninsured or un-reimbursed medical, dental, vision or other health care expense, incurred for a minor child shall be shared equally by the parties.   Each party is required to reimburse the other his/her equal share of the expense within thirty (30) days after being provided with documentation of the medical expense, the insurance payment, and the company's co-pay reimbursement.

33. Neither party shall contract for any elective surgery or incur expenses for non-medical healing arts for a child without consulting with and obtaining the consent of the other, except in the case of an emergency.   Consent to such treatment shall not be unreasonably withheld.

34. The wife shall be responsible for her own health insurance.   The husband shall be responsible for his own health insurance.

LIFE INSURANCE

35. The husband shall maintain at his expense a life insurance policy for the minor children in the amount of at least one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000) dollars for as long as he has an obligation to contribute to the support of the children or to their post-secondary education until the age of 23.   He shall designate the wife, as trustee for the children as an irrevocable beneficiary of the policy, in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000) dollars.   He shall provide proof to the wife yearly, upon request, of the continued existence of the policy and the amount of insurance.

AUTOMOBILES

36. The wife shall retain and have sole possession and ownership of the 2002 Ford Explorer with a value of $6,360 and no outstanding loan balance, free and clear of any claim by the husband.   He shall execute any and all documents required to register the vehicle in her name and to confirm her ownership of the vehicle, if necessary.

37. The husband shall pay any outstanding motor vehicle property tax and non-moving motor vehicle fine associated with the vehicle and due on or before July 1, 2013.   Thereafter, she shall indemnify and hold him harmless for any liability or expense associated with the use, maintenance, and ownership of the vehicle.

38. The husband shall retain and have sole possession and ownership of the 2013 Honda Civic with a value of $18,000 and a loan balance of $22,000, free and clear of any claim by the wife.   He shall indemnify and hold her harmless for any liability or expense associated with the use, maintenance, and ownership of the vehicle.   She shall execute any and all documents required to confirm his ownership of the vehicle, if necessary.

BANK ACCOUNTS

39. The wife shall retain all monies deposited in the bank accounts as listed on her financial affidavit, dated May 16, 2013 and filed with the court on May 22, 2013, free and clear of any claim by the husband.

40. The husband shall retain all monies deposited in the bank account listed on his financial affidavit, dated June 10, 2013, filed with the court on June 11, 2013, and re-affirmed by him on June 11, 2013, free and clear of any claim by the wife.

RETIREMENT/DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNT

41. The husband shall transfer to the wife one-half of his Vanguard 401K account, valued on his financial affidavit, dated June 10, 2013, filed with the court on June 11, 2013, and re-affirmed by him on June 11, 2013, to be worth approximately $79,957, subject to any gains and losses that may occur between June 10, 2013, and the date of the segregation, within sixty (60) days of the date of judgment.   In the event a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is necessary to effectuate the equalization, the parties shall retain a mutually agreed upon attorney.   The wife's attorney shall cause a QDRO to be prepared to facilitate the transfer of funds, if necessary.   The parties shall share the cost of the QDRO equally.   The husband shall fully cooperate with the wife in the preparation and execution of the QDRO. The valuation date for the purpose of division shall be the date the QDRO is approved by the plan administrator.   The court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of effectuating the QDRO, if necessary.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

42. The wife is awarded the following items of jewelry:  a 24 carat gold necklace, a pair of large gold earrings, blue topaz earrings, and a pendant set with a gold chain.

43. The wife shall be entitled to retrieve and retain the following items of personal property from the marital residence:  (a) her clothing and personal effects remaining in the home, including her coats, jackets, saris, handbags and books;  (b) any of her personal jewelry that may be in the home or is within the husband's possession or control;  (c) the children's trophies;  (d) their daughter's diamond butterfly earrings;  (e) a black pitcher/jug with silver and turquoise stones;  (f) the two largest framed pictures in the living room depicting birds taking flight, a waterfall, mountains and a cabin;  (g) an ice cream maker;  (h) three Pyrex dishes;  (i) one Cuisinart pot with lid;  (j) one Cuisinart frying pan;  (k) a small freezer;  (l) the small wooden table in the upstairs hallway;  (m) one air conditioner;  (n) a Koran;  (o) the three small photo albums in a flowered box and three large photo albums;  and (p) the children's clothing.

44. The husband shall immediately return to the marital home any of the above items which he removed, caused to be removed or was removed from the marital home with his knowledge or consent by someone other than the wife and without her express authorization.

45. The wife shall retrieve and remove the items within 60 days from the date of judgment.   If she fails to remove the items from the marital residence within 60 days of judgment, the husband may retain or dispose of them at his discretion.

46. The wife alleged but failed to prove that the husband destroyed or otherwise disposed of other property.   Other than as set forth above, the court does not require the husband to return, reimburse, or pay wife the cash value for any other property.

47. The husband shall be entitled to retain and have sole ownership of all the remaining household furniture, furnishings, appliances, tools and equipment presently located at the marital residence.

48. Any other personal property that is not otherwise disposed of herein shall remain the property of the party who presently has physical possession and/or control of it, free of any claim by the other.

MARITAL RESIDENCE

49. The husband shall retain all of his right, title and interest in the marital residence 14 Summer Street in Derby, Connecticut.   He shall be responsible for payment of the first mortgage, second mortgage, any other mortgage, lien or encumbrance on the property, taxes, insurance, utilities, capital improvements, maintenance, and all other expenses and liabilities associated with the property situated at 14 Summer Street.   He shall indemnify and hold the wife harmless thereon.

50. The court retains jurisdiction over this property for three (3) years.

LOT IN BANGLADESH

51. The husband shall retain all of his right, title and interest in the lot in Bangladesh.   He shall be responsible for payment of any mortgage, tax, insurance, capital improvement, maintenance, and other expenses and liabilities associated with the lot.   He shall indemnify and hold the wife harmless thereon.

52. The wife shall transfer to the husband all of her right, title and interest in the lot in Bangladesh immediately upon receipt by her from the husband of the sum of twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars for the lot, minus a credit of $6,563.60 for his overpayment of the arrearage for alimony and child support.

53. The husband shall pay the wife the sum of twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars (minus a credit of $6,563.60) for her equity interest in the lot within ninety (90) days from the date of judgment.

54. If the husband has not paid the wife twenty thousand ($20,000 minus a credit of $6,563.60) dollars within ninety (90) days from the date of judgment, then he shall commence paying her the sum of three hundred ($300) dollars per month by the 30th day of each month until the sum of twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars is paid in full.   The payments shall be without interest if the payments of $300 are timely made each and every month.   He shall pay four (4%) interest on any monthly payment that is not made in full by the 30th day of each month.

55. If the husband has not paid the wife twenty thousand ($20,000 minus a credit of $6,563.60) dollars within ninety (90) days from the date of judgment for her equity interest in the lot in Bangladesh, he shall execute a mortgage note and mortgage deed to her on 14 Summer Street in Derby, Connecticut to record on the land records to secure the payment of the twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars to her, in addition to any other remedy in law or equity that she may have.

DEBTS AND LIABILITIES

56. The wife shall be solely responsible for paying the following debts set forth on her financial affidavit dated May 16, 2013 and filed with the court on May 22, 2013:  Lord & Taylor, Sulton Chowdhury and Shakara Chowdhury.   She shall indemnify and hold the husband harmless against any claim brought against him arising from such debts.

57. The husband shall be solely responsible for paying the following debts, set forth on the wife's financial affidavit dated May 16, 2013 and filed with the court on May 22, 2013:  Juniper Barclay MC, HSBC MC, each of the two Chase accounts, each of the two Discover Financial accounts, and the Bureaus Inc. Collection account.   The husband's obligation to pay these debts is in the nature of support and may not be discharged by the husband in bankruptcy.

58. The husband shall immediately cancel and close out the Juniper Barclay MC, HSBC MC accounts;  the two Chase accounts;  the two Discover Financial accounts;  and any other account open by him in the wife's name.

59. The husband shall be solely responsible for paying all of the debts set forth on his financial affidavit, dated June 10, 2013, filed with the court on June 11, 2013, and re-affirmed by him on June 11, 2013, except for the debts to Toyota Motor Credit and the Pediatric & Adolescent Healthcare.   He shall indemnify and hold the wife harmless against any claim brought against her arising from such debts.

60. The parties shall equally divide the balance due on the debts to Toyota Motor Credit and the Pediatric & Adolescent Healthcare, set forth on the wife's financial affidavit dated May 16, 2013 and filed with the court on May 22, 2013.

TAX LIABILITY

61. The husband shall indemnify and hold the wife harmless from any liability that may attach to her as a result of any federal or state income tax return he filed or neglected to file during the marriage.

RESTRAINING ORDER

62. A permanent Restraining Order shall enter in favor of the wife.   The husband shall not assault, threaten, harass or abuse the wife;  enter her residence or upon the property wherein she resides;  and stay twenty (20) yards away from her.   He is also prohibited from assaulting, threatening, harassing or abusing the minor children.   The remaining provisions of the September 5, 2012, Restraining Order, extended until the conclusion of the trial, are vacated.

PENDENTE LITE ARREARAGE

63. The husband's obligation to pay to the wife an alimony and child support arrearage of $918 has been satisfied in full.   The wage execution issued to secure the payment of same shall be immediately discontinued.

64. The husband is entitled to receive a credit of $6,563.60 against the twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars due the wife for her equity interest in the lot in Bangladesh, for his overpayment of the arrearage.

GAL AND COUNSEL FEES

65. The husband shall pay the balance due the GAL of $4,662.50 for his services rendered in this dissolution action, pursuant to the court's order issued on September 15, 2011.

66. The wife shall be responsible for payment of her attorneys fees.

67. The husband shall be responsible for payment of his attorneys fees.

By the Court

John Turner,

Judge of the Superior Court

Turner, John, J.