William D. Horlacher v. Barbara Horlacher–Carleton (2013)

Memorandum of Decision

The plaintiff who was a resident of Uncasville, Connecticut initiated this action for dissolution of marriage with a complaint that was returned to the court on April 23, 2013.   At the time the defendant was a resident of Stratford, Connecticut.

The court finds that it has jurisdiction and that all statutory stays have expired.

A limited contested trial was held before this court on September 18, 2013.   Both parties appeared at trial;  defendant was represented by counsel.

The court has fully considered the criteria of C.G.S. Sec. 46b–40–86, as well as the evidence, applicable case law, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and arguments of counsel in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that issue in this decision.

Factual Findings

The court finds that the following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. The plaintiff and the defendant, whose maiden name was Carlton, were married on July 26, 2011 at New Haven, Connecticut.

2. One of the parties has resided continuously in the state of Connecticut for at least one year prior to the commencement of this action.

3. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably without the prospect of reconciliation.

4. There is one child of the marriage, Tyler N. Horlacher, born December 16, 2011.   No other children have been born to the wife since the date of the marriage.

5. Defendant receives assistance from the State Of Connecticut in the form of Husky medical insurance and food stamps.

6. The parties entered into a shared parenting agreement dated September 18, 2013, which the court finds to be in the child's best interest and which is approved by the court and incorporated into the judgment.

7. Both parties appear to be in good health.

8. Plaintiff is incarcerated for a series of felony charges and is not currently employed.   Defendant has the minor child and two other minor children, not of the marriage and testified she is currently not employed outside the home.

9. The parties were involved in a very short-term relationship;  they began living together in approximately March 2011.   They were married in July 2011.   They had only lived together as husband and wife for approximately two months when the plaintiff was arrested on criminal charges.   In October 2011, the plaintiff was arrested for numerous felony and misdemeanor larceny counts and has been incarcerated since that time.   The child was born in December 2011.

Both parties have felony convictions.   Plaintiff is serving a sentence for a litany of felony and misdemeanor larceny charges.   Neither party was particularly credible as a witness;  their testimony contradictory or thoroughly unbelievable.

The parties' only dispute is over two assets:  a 2005 Mercury SUV and a piece of real estate in Warren, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff claims while he lived with defendant, he contributed to the household expenses and the monthly payment for this vehicle was one of those expenses.   The court does not credit any of his testimony regarding this motor vehicle.

Both parties testified regarding the purchase of the property in Pennsylvania.   Testimony established that the property was purchased for $36,000 cash on August 31, 2011;  and placed solely in the defendant's name.   Testimony established that the parties intended that the Pennsylvania property be the marital home.   Plaintiff claimed it was purchased with cash from his winnings from gambling.   The defendant claims the property was purchased with money she had from loans in 2010 and over $13,000 in tax refunds.   The court credits neither of the parties' testimony regarding the source of this large quantity of cash;  it is noted they purchased the property only days before the plaintiff was arrested on multiple larceny charges for which he is now serving a sentence.

Defendant further testified that she sold this Pennsylvania property on February 28, 2013 to her boyfriend, Benjamin Del Rio, for the sum of $4,000.   Even though the standing orders were in place, defendant did not seek a court order allowing her to dispose of a marital asset.   Further, the court finds that the defendant's testimony regarding this “sale” is not credible, due in large part to the fact that she claims it was sold for only $4,000 to her boyfriend.

Orders

1) The marriage is hereby dissolved on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.   The parties are declared to be single and unmarried.

2) Neither party shall pay alimony to the other.

3) Court will adopt the parenting plan as agreed to by the parties.   The parties will share joint legal custody of the minor child with the primary residence with the mother.   Final decision making authority shall be with the defendant.   While the father is incarcerated within the state of Connecticut the defendant shall provide phone contact with the minor child on Sundays between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

There is no order of child support as the father is incarcerated;  this is the reason for the deviation from the child support guidelines.   Upon the plaintiff's obtaining employment, he will pay child support in accordance with the Connecticut guidelines.   Plaintiff must notify the defendant of his employment within seven days of acquiring said employment.

The court will adopt the State of Connecticut's proposed orders dated September 24, 2013 regarding medical and dental insurance and incorporate them into this judgment.

The court will retain jurisdiction for any post-majority educational support orders.

4) The defendant will retain ownership of the parties' two motor vehicles.   She will be responsible for all costs of ownership and maintenance of said vehicles.

5) The court will find the defendant has violated the standing orders prohibiting the disposal of marital assets.   The court has found the evidence of a “sale” not credible.   As such, the property located at 1018W 5th Ave., Warren, PA, is still determined to be a marital asset.   Defendant is ordered to take all steps necessary to clear the title in her name and place the property with a local real estate agency for sale.   After all necessary costs of the sale have been paid the parties shall equally divide any proceeds.   The court will retain jurisdiction regarding the sale of this marital asset.

6) Except as provided above, the remaining debts and assets as listed each party's financial affidavit shall be the sole responsibility of that party and the party shall hold the other party free and clear of any responsibility.

7) The parties shall file their taxes separately commencing in 2013 and be entitled to any refund received without claim by the other party.   Defendant shall have the right to claim the minor child as a dependant on her tax returns.   Should there be any tax liability for the years 2011 and 2012;  the parties shall share that liability equally.

8) The defendant's maiden name is restored.

Klatt, J.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT'S PROPOSED ORDERS

The State of Connecticut respectfully requests that the following orders enter:

1 Both parties shall provide medical and dental insurance for the benefit of the minor child[ren] if it is available through employment or group insurance at a reasonable cost defined as no more than 5% of Plaintiff's and 7 1/2% of Defendant's respective net weekly income.

2. The parties shall be responsible for unreimbursed medical and dental costs for the minor child[ren] in ratios in accordance with the State of Connecticut Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines or as may be ordered by the Court.   If none are stated then at a 50/50 split.

3. These orders shall not be made effective as against the Plaintiff until his release from incarceration.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mee Carolyn Wong

Assistant Attorney General

Klatt, Corinne L., J.