Karin Lawrence v. Manuel Cords (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The parties to this action were married on May 2, 1987 in Ridgewood, New Jersey.   This was a second marriage for both parties.   There are two children from this marriage, both of whom have reached the age of majority.   The parties have continuously resided in Connecticut for several years.   The plaintiff is 62 years old.   The defendant is 65 years old.

Assets

Defendant initially purchased with his sister what came to be the family home.   The purchase price was $224,000.   His sister contributed $135,000 toward the purchase price.   The property consisted of the main house, the 1916 barn and a writer's cottage.   Defendant worked on the house for over a year before the family moved in during the summer of 1995.   The house had not been insulated, the roof needed attention, and every room in the house needed work, and the work was done almost exclusively by the defendant.   He gutted the cottage and built a horse barn on the property.   The source of money for this undertaking was from loans, from credit cards, and from withdrawals from his brokerage account.   According to the defendant, the plaintiff made no contribution to the renovation.   The cost of renovation was approximately $450,000.   Plaintiff subsequently purchased the sister's interest in the family home in 2004.   The note and mortgage undertaken was for $300,000.   Defendant's sister was paid $181,000.   The parties used the remaining proceeds for household expenses, including the defendant's bills.   The balance on the mortgage is approximately $206,000.

Defendant bought additional land in the immediate vicinity of 61 Phelps Road. He purchased additional land on March 30, 1996 for close to $28,000.   He bought an additional three 4–acre parcels in 2000 for $125,000.   The defendant is the sole legal owner of these additional parcels.

In addition to her interest in 61 Phelps Road, plaintiff has an equitable interest in the land purchased by the defendant.   Her share in two family trusts is valued at more than $700,000.   She has a pension from the State of Connecticut currently valued at $249,000.   She listed personal property on her financial affidavit, including jewelry given to her by the defendant which he claims is worth $95,000.   She lists debts totaling $10,271.

In addition to his interest in the Colebrook properties, the defendant has a one-third interest in Sibling Associates Limited Partnership.   He claims that this interest is worth $122,399.   He has a Wells Fargo IRA valued at approximately $543,000.   He has a Wells Fargo account valued at approximately $243,000.   He listed personal property on his financial affidavit valued at $117,500, excluding the motor vehicle and jewelry in the plaintiff's possession.   He lists debts, including those to family members of $657,927.   The largest portion of the debt is owed to Sibling Associates Limited Partnership.   Sibling Associates has a right of first refusal regarding the Colebrook properties.   Defendant caused this to happen just prior to the filing of the divorce complaint.   He is the grantor and Sibling Associates is the grantee.   Sibling Associates has a demand note in the amount of $451,791.00 which is not secured by a mortgage.

Income & Earning Capacity

The plaintiff has a degree in Philosophy from Hunter College and an MBA from Columbia.   She is employed by Connecticut Innovations, Inc. and earns a net weekly wage of $1,314.   She has worked throughout the marriage.   She has contributed her entire paycheck toward the household.

The defendant has a law degree from Harvard Law School, and he was a partner in a New York law firm when he and the plaintiff met in 1982.   In 1988, the defendant voluntarily left his law firm and has not practiced law since that time.   The family moved to Connecticut, but the defendant did not take the Connecticut Bar exam, and he is not licensed to practice law in the State of Connecticut.   He was self-employed for a while as a financial advisor, but he has drawn no income from that endeavor for several years.   He assisted the plaintiff's family with respect to the two trusts.

Defendant is the sole managing partner of Sibling Associates.   He spends his time managing his family's assets as well as maintaining the Colebrook property.   He describes himself as a farmer.   His financial affidavit indicates that he has no income from employment.   His sources of income are chiefly from investments and IRA distributions.   His mother had established trust accounts for the children, and that money was used to fund their education.   He has borrowed from these accounts.

The defendant submitted a letter from his doctor setting forth a number of health issues in his medical history.   He currently has type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure.   He suffers from gout.   He takes medication for these conditions.   He has had no gout attacks since taking the medication.   He has no medical conditions that prevent him from working.

Fair Market Value of Colebrook Properties

Robert S. Bartos, a real estate appraiser called by the plaintiff, testified that the market value of 61 Phelps Road on its original ten acres is $600,000.   The total market value of the other Colebrook properties is $165,000.

Arthur Oles, a real estate appraiser called by the defendant, testified that 61 Phelps Road has a market value of $525,000.   The other parcels have a total value of $110,000.   He attributes a reduced value to Sibling Associates' right of first refusal.

The court finds that the fair market value of the Colebrook Properties is $700,000.

Considerations Pursuant to C.G.S. Section 46b–81

The court does not allocate blame for the breakdown of the parties' marriage to either party.   The relationship appears to have been one of some distrust from the beginning.   Prior to the marriage, the defendant requested the plaintiff to sign a pre-marital agreement.   That agreement was deemed invalid prior to the trial.   Except for filing joint tax returns, the parties kept their finances separate.   The credible evidence establishes that both parties made nonfinancial contributions to the marriage, including child care and housekeeping.   Notwithstanding the defendant's argument that the plaintiff should receive less than one-half of the value of the real estate, the court finds that the plaintiff's financial contributions to the marriage entitle her to a one-half interest in the properties.   Throughout the marriage, the defendant had use of plaintiff's earnings which allowed him to engage in activities he preferred such as working on the house and on the family's financial matters.   The court recognizes that the defendant's contributions entitle him to a one-half interest in the properties.

The parties have agreed to keep their own retirement funds and the interest in their family trusts.   Although the court does not make any division of these assets, the court does consider them when rendering its decision.   The defendant who is over 65 years of age is entitled to medicare.

Judgment

1. The marriage of the parties is dissolved.

2. No alimony is awarded to either party.

3. The plaintiff's interest in Lawasset and Winasset is hers and hers alone.

4. The defendant's interest in Sibling Associates is his and his alone.

5. The plaintiff's retirement account and all bank accounts in her name are hers and hers alone.

6. The defendant's retirement account and all bank accounts in his name are his and his alone.

7. Upon payment of $246,000 by the defendant to the plaintiff as set forth herein, the plaintiff shall quitclaim all her right, title, and interest in 61 Colebrook Road to the defendant.   The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless on all notes and mortgages regarding the Colebrook properties.

8. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $246,000 within 60 days of notice of this decision.   Should the defendant fail to pay the sum of $246,000 to the plaintiff in the time period allotted, the defendant shall take whatever steps necessary to remove the cloud on the title he caused to be placed in the name of Sibling Associates, and the parties shall immediately thereafter cause 61 Phelps Road to be placed on the market.   The sales price will be determined by the real estate broker.   Upon sale of the subject property, the proceeds shall be paid out as follows:  payment in full of the Webster Bank mortgage;  $246,000 plus interest on said sum at the legal rate to the plaintiff;  remainder to the defendant.   Said interest begins running sixty days from the date of this decision.

9. The IRS refund for the 2010 tax return shall be split equally between the parties.

10. Each party shall keep the personal property now in that party's possession.

11. All debts on the plaintiff's financial affidavit, excluding the Webster Bank mortgage, are to be paid by the plaintiff, and she shall hold the defendant harmless thereon.

12. All debts on the defendant's financial affidavit are to be paid by the defendant, and he shall hold the plaintiff harmless thereon.

13. The defendant is solely responsible for daughter Olivia's educational expenses to the extent that he has not paid his debt to her.

14. The plaintiff shall make COBRA available to the defendant at his sole expense.

BY THE COURT,

Gallagher, J.

Gallagher, Elizabeth A., J.