Oni Obinani v. Osita Obuekwe (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This action seeks the dissolution of the parties' 3–year marriage.   The action was commenced by complaint dated July 27, 2013 and returnable to the court on August 21, 2013.

The matter was tried before the court on November 1, 2013.   The court has considered all the credible evidence presented to it along with its observation of the demeanor and attitude of the parties.   All the exhibits have been carefully reviewed and considered, as well as relevant common law, including, without limitation, the statutory criteria set forth in General Statues § 46b–82 as to assignment of alimony and § 46b–81 as to assignment of property and transfer of title.   The court has carefully considered the respective criteria for orders of alimony, property division, payment of counsel fees, and has unsealed financial affidavits.   The findings of fact made by the court have been made by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

JURISDICTION

The parties lived in the State of Connecticut for at least one year before the filing of the dissolution complaint.   The parties have not been recipients of state aid.   The court finds that the allegations of the complaint are proven and true.   The parties' marriage has broken down irretrievably with no hope of reconciliation.   All statutory stays have expired.   The court has jurisdiction over this matter.   Both plaintiff and defendant are represented by counsel.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The parties were married on October 10, 2010 in Meriden, Connecticut.   One child was issue of the marriage, Ziora Obuekwe, born June 17, 2011.   Relative to the minor child, both parties asked the court to adopt as final orders the pendente lite orders entered by the court, Olear, J., on October 4, 2013.   The main provision of the order is that the plaintiff mother shall have sole legal and primary physical custody of the minor child.   Plaintiff will also be permitted to relocate to New York with Ziora with fourteen days' notice to defendant.

The plaintiff is employed by the Connecticut Department of Labor as a Community Service Representative.   Her net weekly wage is $682.   The defendant husband is employed by the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority as an Asset Manager.   His net weekly wage is $824.   Defendant also has $250 weekly income from the rental of a condominium.   The condominium is a pre-marital asset.   Defendant realizes a deficit of approximately $8 after paying expenses related to the condominium.   The parties are both in good health.

The parties were engaged sometime in February 2010.   Plaintiff lived and worked in New York and defendant resided in Meriden with his young son.¹  Plaintiff alleges that she and defendant made plans to marry in Connecticut and purchase a home here.   The parties engaged the services of Jennifer Merrill, a real estate agent.   Ms. Merrill showed the parties multiple homes together, and on occasion, to defendant Obuekwe alone.   Plaintiff travelled to Connecticut on weekends to see the listings, but at some point tired of the hectic schedule.   She testified that between her work in New York, looking for a position in Connecticut, planning a wedding and looking to purchase a home, she became stressed.   Plaintiff testified that she asked defendant that they cease their house search until after the wedding and her move to Connecticut.

Real Estate agent Merrill testified that the parties were prequalified to purchase a home.   Sometime in February 2010 the parties made an offer of $190,000 for 53 Old Mountain Road in Southington.   The offer was not accepted.   Prior to a counter-offer being made, the plaintiff elected not to proceed with the process, but expressed her desire to wait until after the wedding.

Defendant testified that he lived in Meriden with his son prior to meeting the plaintiff.   Defendant stated that he was paying $4,000 to $5,000 to send his son to Midstate Academy and desired to move from Meriden to a municipality with a better school system.   He claims he was searchig for a home prior to beginning his search with plaintiff.   The court does not find him credible in this regard.   The only evidence introduced at trial was that both plaintiff and defendant together were prequalified for the home purchase.   The fact that the real estate agent occasionally showed listings to defendant alone is consistent with plaintiff's testimony that she lived in New York and travel to Connecticut every weekend was taxing.

Sometime during the summer of 2010, defendant testified that he searched for properties online and discovered that the home that he and plaintiff had bid upon in February was on the subject of an online auction.   The price of the home at 53 Old Mountain Road had decreased significantly, from the original asking price of $196,000 to $137,000.   Plaintiff testified that she received a telephone call from the defendant apprising her of the online auction and indicating that time was of the essence.   She further testified that defendant told her he would purchase the home in his name alone and would add her name to the deed when she came to Connecticut.   Plaintiff agreed to this arrangement and the court finds her testimony credible.   The closing on the Southington home occurred on August 5, 2010.

There were several immediate concerns that required attention prior to the parties' ability to occupy the home.   The plaintiff expended approximately $7,500 to make the home habitable.   The plaintiff paid for appliances, tree removal on the property and for a contractor to paint and perform plumbing and install insulation.   The defendant alleges he has paid in excess of $34,000 in home repairs during the course of the marriage.   Funds spent on the repair of the septic system, included in the $34,000 figure, were at least partially reimbursed by the homeowners' insurance policy although the amount of the reimbursement is unknown.

Defendant claims that his total house expenditures are $190,000.   This figure includes the $34,000 in repairs, closing fees, refinancing costs, and a $3,500 transaction fee for the purchase of the home.   No evidence was introduced to support the $190,000 in costs and the court does not find the defendant's testimony credible relative to the $190,000 figure.

The plaintiff retained the services of George O'Connell, a licensed real estate appraiser, to testify as to the value of the marital home.   Mr. O'Connell testified that he arrived at a value of $220,000 for the property by comparing the instant property to three similarly situated properties that recently sold.   He did not consider properties that were listed by banks or being listed as part of a probate estate as he does not believe them to be good “comps” as they often sell for less than market value.   Mr. O'Connell's directions were to seek highest and best value of the property.

The defendant's licensed appraiser, Richard Nwadukwe, testified that he appraised the value of the property at $175,000.   He testified that the house is dated and in need of some repairs.   Mr. Nwadukwe also used comparables in arriving at his value.   One of the homes was a bank owned property and another was a foreclosed property.   Mr. Nwadukwe was retained by defendant Obuekwe.   They are both Nigerian and have, on limited occasion, interacted at social events.   Defendant is friends with Mr. Nwadukwe's younger brother.²  The court finds the fair market value of the home to be $220,000.

The marriage began to experience serious difficulty from its inception.   Defendant alleges that three weeks into the marriage the plaintiff contacted him at work and inquired when he would put her name on the house's deed.   He expressed disbelief at her request alleging that he never stated he would do so.   Defendant believes their marriage went “downhill” after the telephone call with his wife.

The plaintiff alleges she left the marital home in late March 2012 after being mistreated by the defendant.   Specifically, the plaintiff testified that she gave birth to their daughter via caesarean section.   Three weeks after giving birth to their child, the defendant informed his wife he was leaving for Nigeria to visit his brother.   The plaintiff was still on bed rest and unable to drive.   She asked the defendant to delay his trip but he refused.   She contacted defendant's brother to inquire whether a family emergency in Nigeria necessitated her husband's immediate departure and was informed that no emergency existed.   She further testified that beginning January 2012 the defendant began to leave the marital home every weekend.   She did not know his whereabouts.   He refused to take time from work to care for their infant daughter when the child was ill.   This necessitated that plaintiff's mother travel from New York to care for the infant.   At some point the defendant indicated that the child's maternal grandmother was no longer welcome in the marital home thus necessitating that the plaintiff travel to New York with the sick child and leave the child in her mother's care in New York.

The plaintiff testified that the “last straw” was the defendant's refusal to heat the family home.   She testified that defendant refused to purchase heating oil for the home and when there was no heating oil left, she resorted to using space heaters to heat the home.   The use of the space heaters caused an electrical problem in the home that left her with no power in sections of the home.   When plaintiff contacted the defendant husband to inform him of the problems she was facing, particularly the lack of heat and hot water in the home with their infant daughter present, he told her it was not his problem.   Plaintiff vacated the home with her daughter following that conversation on March 28, 2012.   On the following day, defendant returned to the marital home, arranged for the delivery of heating oil, and changed the locks on the marital home depriving the plaintiff of entry.   He made little effort to see his daughter following the plaintiff's leaving the marital home.

The plaintiff testified that defendant was never forthcoming about his finances.   The only joint account held by the parties was an account wherein they deposited approximately $5,000 in wedding presents.   Defendant alleges the money “disappeared” and plaintiff alleges the monies were used for household expenses.   Plaintiff elicited testimony from Richard Ekeh, who testified he has known the defendant since the 1990s.   Sometime during the period of June–September 2012, the defendant gave him $15,000 to hold.   The defendant did not give Mr. Ekeh a reason and did not inform him where the money was obtained.   After plaintiff left the marital home, the defendant husband sued her in small claims court for, among other expenses, the cost of groceries and oil for the furnace.   The suit was dismissed.

Plaintiff also indicated that defendant approached her about the possibility of purchasing property in Georgia during the course of the marriage.   She informed her husband she was interested, but indicated she did not wish to do so at that time.   In October 2011 the defendant purchased property in Rockdale County, Georgia for $1,500 and put his brother as co-owner of the property.

Lastly, the court finds credible that plaintiff moved to Connecticut in order to marry defendant and establish her home here.   The plaintiff now wishes to return to New York as soon as practicable.   She left a position in New York that paid her twice her current salary and left behind her family and support network.   Her mother, on whom she relies heavily for assistance with her young daughter, resides in New York.

DISCUSSION

“There is no absolute right to alimony ․ Awards of alimony incident to a marital dissolution rest in the sound discretion of the trial court.”   (Citations omitted.)  Weinstein v. Weinstein, 18 Conn.App. 622, 637, 561 A.2d 443 (1989).   In determining whether to award alimony and the duration and amount of the award, the court “shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the ․ dissolution of the marriage ․ the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties and the award, if any, which the court may make pursuant to section 46b–81 ․” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–82.   The court is not required to give equal weight to each factor, but “may place varying degrees of importance on each criterion according to the factual circumstances of each case ․” Kaczinski v. Kaczinski, 124 Conn. 204, 211, 3 A.3d. 1034 (2010).   The court will award the plaintiff minimal periodic alimony to assist her in seeking employment and housing in New York.

“The assignment of property in a marital dissolution rests in the sound discretion of the court.”  Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 544 (1980).  “In fixing the nature and value of the property, if any, to be assigned, the court ․ shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the ․ dissolution of the marriage ․ the age, health, station, occupation amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income.   The court shall also consider the contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their respective estates.”  Gen.Stat. § 46b–81(c).  The court has considered these factors in reaching a property division and in its decision not to enter orders relative to the $5,000 wedding account.

ORDERS

1. Dissolution:  The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.   The parties are declared single and unmarried.

2. Custody:  The plaintiff shall have sole legal custody of the minor child.   The entire Agreement of the Parties, Pendente Lite dated October 4, 2013 and entered as an order of the court on said date, is incorporated herein.

3. Child Support:  The defendant shall pay to the defendant the sum of $142 per week, via wage withholding, as child support for the benefit of the minor child.   Said sum is in accordance with the guidelines.   All other orders pertaining to the minor child in the companionized magistrate file of Obinani v. Obuekwe, Docket No. FA12–4063017 S are incorporated herein by reference.

4. Tax Filings:  In 2013 and thereafter the parties shall alternate claiming the minor child, Ziora, as a dependent for federal and state income tax purposes.   The defendant shall claim Ziora in 2013.

5. College Expense:  The court retains jurisdiction over the post-majority educational support for their daughter Ziora.

6. Marital Home:  The court awards the plaintiff one-half the value of increase of the marital home, $41,500.   The defendant shall pay the sum of $41,500 in monthly payments of $1,000.   The $1,000 shall be payable on or before the last Friday of each month.   The defendant shall hold harmless and indemnify the plaintiff from any and all liability arising out of the ownership of said property including the mortgage and taxes thereon.   The court will retain jurisdiction over the home for the purposes of enforcing and effectuating the judgment.

7. Alimony:  Husband shall pay to the wife alimony in the amount of $100 per week for 6 months from the date of judgment.   Alimony will terminate on the death of either party or the remarriage of the plaintiff.   The term and the amount of the alimony shall not be modifiable.

8. Bank Accounts:  The parties shall retain for their sole benefit any monies in their respective bank accounts.

9. Georgia Property:  The defendant shall keep all interest in the Georgia property free and clear from any claim by the plaintiff.

10. Deferred Compensation Plans:  The plaintiff and defendant shall retain for her/his sole benefit the deferred compensation plans listed on their financial affidavits.

11. Liabilities:  Unless specified herein, each party shall be liable for his or her individual debts as set forth in his/her financial affidavit.

12. Counsel Fees:  Each party shall pay their own respective counsel fees.   Unless otherwise specifically set forth herein, these orders are effective immediately.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Ficeto, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The son is not issue of this marriage;  his mother died during the time she was married to defendant..  FN1. The son is not issue of this marriage;  his mother died during the time she was married to defendant.

FN2. Mr. Nwadukwe's brother is currently in medical school outside the United States..  FN2. Mr. Nwadukwe's brother is currently in medical school outside the United States.

Ficeto, Anna M., J.