Marco A. Lopes v. Heather M. Lopes (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff husband by complaint dated November 29, 2012 and made returnable to this court on January 29, 2013 seeking dissolution of marriage.   The defendant appeared by counsel and filed a cross complaint on January 24, 2013 seeking a dissolution of marriage, and other orders.

On September 9, 2013, the matter was tried to the court.   Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present for the trial.   The parties agreed to proceed on the defendant's cross complaint.   The plaintiff was self-represented and the defendant was represented by counsel.   Testimony was received from the plaintiff, the defendant and a witness for the defendant.

No exhibits were entered by either party.   Both parties filed financial affidavits with the court.

From the testimony and evidence produced at the trial and after assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the following facts to have been proven.

The parties were intermarried on September 24, 2011 in Manchester, Connecticut.   The defendant has resided in this state for more than one year immediately prior to the date of her cross complaint.   Neither party is receiving any state, federal or local assistance.   There are no children born or adopted to either party since the date of the marriage.   The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the marriage.

The plaintiff is employed as a cook according to his financial affidavit and grosses $775.00 per week and nets $675.00 per week.   The defendant is employed as a deli manager according to her financial affidavit and gross $830.00 a week and nets $514.00 a week according to her financial affidavit.

The parties were married on September 24, 2011 and separated on August 19, 2012.   The defendant claims that the breakdown of the marriage was caused by the plaintiff being involved with another woman.   The plaintiff denies that allegation and testified that a lack of communication contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.   As there was a dearth of evidence to address each party's respective claim as to the cause of the breakdown, the court cannot find that either party was responsible more than the other to the breakdown of the marriage.   The parties agreed on most of the financial aspects of the marriage.   The primary disagreement concerns the defendant's request that the plaintiff pay either the defendant or the Dime Savings Bank the sum of $35,000.00.   The testimony at the trial revealed that the plaintiff and the defendant were living with the defendant's parents at 171 Ross Hill Road, in Lisbon, Connecticut.   The Ross Hill property is owned by the defendant's parents.   The plaintiff and the defendant desired to live in said premises during their marriage with the defendant's parents in order for the parties and the plaintiff's children from a prior relationship and an anticipated offspring.   The residence was not of sufficient size to accommodate all the parties and as such, it was agreed that a renovation of the premises would be done.   The defendant's parents procured a mortgage on their premises in the amount of $75,000.00 in April of 2012 and utilized said sum to expand said premises.   The work was performed under a contract signed by the defendant's parents.   The work that was done on the premises included the installation of hardwood flooring, marble tile in the bathroom, the addition of a master bedroom and family room, siding, kitchen renovation and window replacement.   Testimony was presented by the defendant's mother who was an owner of the property that prior to the renovation, the property was worth $135,000.00 to $140,000.00 and that it appreciated due to the renovations and that it is now worth $175,000.00.   The court finds the defendant's mother's testimony to be credible in regard to the value of the property.   The current balance of the loan is approximately $71,000.00.   The defendant is also seeking a $1.00 a year alimony which is only modifiable that the plaintiff failed to meet the requested property terms.

The court finds that this has been a very short-term marriage with the parties separating less than one year after the marriage.   Both parties are employed with the defendant earning more money than the plaintiff.   The defendant lists on her financial affidavit a loan from her parents in regard to the Dime Savings Bank in the approximate amount of $71,000.00.   Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant signed said note or mortgage to the Dime Savings Bank and neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have any ownership interest on the property known as 171 Ross Hill Road, Lisbon, Connecticut which is secured by the mortgage having a balance of $71,000.00.   Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant hired the contractor for the renovations to said property.   It is undisputed that the proceeds of the $75,000.00 loan were applied to renovations on the Lisbon property which has significantly appreciated in value as a result of said renovations.   The title and ownership to said property is not in the name of either the plaintiff or defendant.   The request of the defendant that the plaintiff either pay $35,000.00 to either the Dime Savings Bank or to the defendant is rejected by the court.   The plaintiff and defendant were not given an ownership interest in said property.   The defendant's parents received the benefit of said $75,000.00 loan by virtue of said improvements to their property and a subsequent increase in value of their property.   This case does not support an award of alimony nor does it support an order that the plaintiff be responsible for payment of the $35,000.00 as claimed by the defendant.

After taking into consideration the statutory criteria set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes as well as the applicable case law and applying the same to the evidence, the court enters the following orders.

1. A decree is entered dissolving the marriage on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown.

2. No alimony is awarded to either party.

3. Each party shall retain possession of and are entitled to all personal property, household goods and possessions now under their possession and control free and clear from any claim by the other.

4. Each party shall retain the ownership of any bank accounts, including savings and checking accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits, free and clear of any claim of the other party.

5. Each party shall retain any pension, retirement, 401K accounts, and/or deferred compensation accounts as listed on their financial affidavits, free and clear of any claim of the other party.

6. The plaintiff shall retain the 1998 Nissan automobile free and clear of any claims of the defendant and shall assume all liabilities that may exists on said vehicle, including but not limited to taxes, insurance and any loans that may exist.

7. The defendant shall retain the 2007 Jeep automobile free and clear of any claims of the plaintiff and shall assume all liabilities that may exist on said vehicle, including but not limited to taxes, insurance and any loans that may exist.

8. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be equally responsible for the following debts as shown on the defendant's financial affidavit:  Backus Hospital, Osceola Regional Medical Center and Norwich Infection Diseases.   Each party shall be solely responsible for all of the other debts as listed on their respective financial affidavits.

9. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be solely responsible for their own medical insurance at their own expense and each party shall be entitled to any medical insurance benefits that may exist under COBRA at their expense for the maximum period allowed by the law.

10. Each party shall be responsible for their respective attorneys fees, if any.

11. The defendant shall have her maiden name of Heather M. Poole restored.

12. Each party shall promptly execute all documents necessary to effectuate these orders.

Graziani, Judge

Graziani, Edward C., J.