James A. Todd v. Wanda Todd (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff husband by complaint dated January 15, 2013 and made returnable to this court on February 12, 2013 seeking a dissolution of marriage, a fair division of property and debts and anything else the court deems fair.   The defendant wife appeared by counsel.

On October 3rd and 15th, the matter was tried to the court.   Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present for the trial and each was represented by counsel.   Testimony was received from the plaintiff and the defendant.   Numerous exhibits were introduced by each party.

From the testimony and the 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 March 20, 2010 in Somerset, Massachusetts.   There are no children born or adopted to either party since the date of the marriage.   Both parties have resided in this state for more than one year immediately prior to the date of the marriage.   The plaintiff and the defendant have no children issue of their marriage and no children were born to the defendant wife since the date of the marriage.   Neither party is receiving any state, federal or local assistance.   The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the marriage.

The plaintiff and the defendant married in March 2010 and a dissolution of marriage action was filed less than three years later.   The marriage was contentious from its very start and the disharmony has increased during the marriage and since the filing of the dissolution action.   Both parties have blamed each other for the failure of the marriage and testified as to inappropriate conduct by each other.   The court finds that both parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage and both contributed to the toxic nature of their relationship.   The court also finds that both parties were not credible in their testimony in regard to the breakdown of the marriage.   The defendant was not credible in her testimony as to the financial aspects of the marriage including the assets and values that she listed on her financial affidavit.

The plaintiff is 71 years old as of the trial and is a retired college professor and minister.   He has numerous significant health conditions.   After his marriage, as he incurred significant debt much of it being used for the purchase and furnishing of the parties' condominium.   During the marriage, he worked as an adjunct professor at multiple colleges upon which he was paid for each course he taught.   He is currently teaching three courses at two different colleges and his financial affidavit reflects a gross wage of $848.03 a week and a net of $468.13 as a result of said teaching income.   He also has income from social security and retirement as listed on his financial affidavit of $729.83 a week gross and a net of $584.18 a week.

The plaintiff has been paying court ordered alimony pendente to the defendant in the amount of $260.00 per week and $40.00 a week towards an arrearage.   He has also paid for the defendant's medical and automobile insurance since the filing of the dissolution action.

The plaintiff and the defendant purchased a condominium on February 9, 2010 shortly before their marriage.   Although the funds used to purchase the property were provided by the plaintiff from assets prior to his marriage, the parties agreed that the title to the property was to be in the sole name of the defendant in order for her to receive a $8,000.00 tax benefit for first time home buyers.   The $8,000.00 was ultimately received by the defendant who retained $2,000.00 for her own use and applied the balance of $6,000.00 to the debts incurred by the parties in connection with expenses for the condominium.   The parties have stipulated that the property is worth $172,500.00 which the court finds is the fair market value of the property.   The property is secured by a first mortgage in the amount of $104,000.00 leaving equity of approximately $68,500.00.   When the property was purchased, the plaintiff brought $58,650.00 to the closing having also previously paid a deposit of $5000.00, all from his personal funds he earned prior to the marriage.   The defendant did not make a financial contribution to the purchase of the condominium nor did she make a significant contribution to the purchasing of furnishings for the condominium.   In addition, the plaintiff incurred significant debt, including credit card balances in connection with the purchase of other expenses for the condominium including out of contract upgrades.

The plaintiff is currently residing in the condominium and is making the mortgage and associated expenses for the property.   The plaintiff attempted to refinance the property in the summer of 2010 but his application was denied.

The plaintiff also testified that he purchased a significant amount of jewelry for the defendant having expended approximately $15,000.00 for it, some of which purchased prior to the marriage.   He also paid for his wife to go to Poland during the marriage.   When the defendant moved out of the marital premises in May 2013, he purchased a bed and mattress for her that she selected and paid approximately $2,300 for it.

During the course of the marriage, the parties did not commingle their finances.   The plaintiff paid for most of the expenses of the parties, including the mortgage, taxes, insurance, water, cable, telephone, condominium fee with the defendant paying the electricity bill and propane costs.   The defendant also testified that she paid the condominium fee at first but the plaintiff paid them thereafter at his suggestion so that the defendant could pay for other expenses such as birthday gifts.   The plaintiff owes approximately $40,000.00 in unsecured debt, as listed on his financial affidavit, much of it incurred in connection with the condominium.

The plaintiff testified that he believes that the defendant is working cleaning houses.   He testified that his wife told him that she would clean houses at the direction of a realtor in Rhode Island.   The plaintiff did not present any other credible evidence to support his claim.   Almost all of the plaintiff's retirement assets were earned prior to the marriage of the parties.

The defendant is 59 years old and has significant health issues.   She is receiving a gross weekly disability income of $134.39 and nets $110.00 from said disability.   In addition, she receives social security in the amount of $130.00 per week in addition to her weekly award of alimony of $240.00 a week with an additional $60.00 a week on the arrearage.   She moved out of the marital residence pursuant to an agreed upon court order and rents a condominium in Rhode Island for $875.00 per month.   She also has debt and has incurred attorneys fees of approximately $7,000.00.   She testified that prior to her marriage she lived in low-income housing.   She also acknowledged that she did not make any major purchases in connection with the parties condominium in Plainfield, Connecticut nor did she provide any funds for its purchase.   She did not testify credible as to the jewelry she owned nor to its value.

The defendant was disabled both prior to the marriage to the plaintiff and remains disabled.   She testified that she was mistreated during the marriage by her husband but still desires to stay married.   The defendant also believes that the plaintiff was unfaithful to her during the marriage.   The defendant also denied having any employment.   The defendant lists approximately $6,000.00 in unsecured debt on her financial affidavit excluding attorneys fees.

The court finds that this has been a short term marriage with the parties both causing its breakdown by their conduct towards each other.   Both the plaintiff and the defendant have significant health issues.   The plaintiff is 71 years old and is retired from his full-time employment but is still working part time as an adjunct professor in order to earn funds to service his debt.   The main asset purchased during the marriage, the condominium was purchased with the plaintiff contributing approximately $60,000.00 of his funds that were accumulated prior to the marriage.   In addition, he also has purchased furnishings and other expenses for the condominium, and owes significant debt to credit card companies.   He has paid approximately $5,700.00 in alimony pendente lite to the defendant as of the trial and has also paid her health insurance and car insurance as well as paying for a bed and mattress for her.   Both parties have incurred substantial attorneys fees in connection with this dissolution of marriage action.   A short term award of alimony is appropriate under the facts of this case.

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 of the parties on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown.

2. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the sum of $150.00 per week alimony, until June 1, 2015, non-modifiable as to term or amount, but terminable upon the death of either party or upon the remarriage of the defendant, and modifiable pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b–86(b).  If the plaintiff elects to pay off this weekly alimony amount in full, any time prior to the termination date of June 1, 2015, he may do so, paying off any remaining balance at the time the lump sum payment is made, in lieu of continuing weekly alimony payments and said alimony shall immediately terminate upon payment with no future modification.   Any remaining arrearage shall be paid at rate of $40.00 per week until fully paid.

No alimony is awarded to the plaintiff.

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

4. The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff by quitclaim deed any and all interest she may have in the property located at 14 Cross Creek Road, Plainfield, Connecticut.   The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for the mortgage, real estate taxes, insurance and other costs associated with the property and shall indemnify the defendant harmless in regard to said property.   The plaintiff shall be entitled to all mortgage interest deductions and real estate tax deductions for said property.   The plaintiff shall further cause the defendants name to be removed from the mortgage and note securing said property within two years of the date of the judgment of the property or shall list the property for sale.   The plaintiff shall make an annual application to refinance the property within one year of this judgment.   If the plaintiff is unable to refinance said property within two years from the date of this decree, then the plaintiff shall place the property for sale with a licensed real estate broker and market it upon terms as recommended by a realtor until it is sold.   Until the defendant's name has been removed from the mortgage, the plaintiff shall keep the mortgage payments current or shall immediately list the property for sale.   In the event there is a refinance or sale of the property, all of the net proceeds are to be retained by the plaintiff with no claim by the defendant.   The court shall retain jurisdiction in regard to the terms of this section.

5. Each party shall retain any pension, retirement benefits, savings accounts or checking accounts as listed in his or her name as listed on their respective financial affidavits.

6. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the 2012 Hyundai Veloster automobile, as listed on his financial affidavit, free and clear of any claims of the defendant.   The plaintiff shall assume and hold the defendant harmless from any encumbrances on said automobile including but not limited to loans, taxes and insurance.

The defendant shall retain ownership of the 2012 Hyundai Accent automobile, as listed on her financial affidavit, free and clear of any claims of the plaintiff.   The defendant shall assume and hold the defendant harmless from any encumbrances on said automobile including but not limited to loans, taxes and insurance.

7. Each party shall retain possession of and are entitled to all household goods, furnishings and possessions now under their possession and control free and clear from any claim by the other except as provided by this judgment.   It being ordered by the court that the defendant shall be entitled to those items boxed and designated as the wife's being currently stored in the garage of the plaintiff's residence.   The defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this judgment within which to make arrangements to remove said items from the plaintiff's garage at a mutually agreeable time.   If the defendant shall not remove said property within thirty days of this judgment, her claim to said property shall be waived.   In addition, the defendant shall retain all jewelry currently in her possession.

8. Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts listed in their own names as listed on their financial affidavits under the liabilities section and hold the other party harmless therefrom.

9. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorneys fees.

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

Graziani, Judge

Graziani, Edward C., J.