Carol Paasman v. Gerritt J. Paasman (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The matter before the court is a dissolution action filed by the plaintiff Carol Paasman against the defendant Gerriff Paasman.   The matter was tried to the court on November 19, 2013 and November 21, 2013 at which the court heard testimony and admitted exhibits.   The procedural and factual history of this case is as follows.   The parties were intermarried on June 8, 1986 in Chicago, Illinois.   There are two children who are the issue of the parties' marriage and both have reached the age of majority:  Alexander Evan, who is nineteen years old, and Jacqueline Henrica, who is eighteen years old.   The parties have resided in the state of Connecticut for more than one year prior to the date of filing.   All statutory stays have expired.   Neither party has been the recipient of state or municipal assistance.   The court has jurisdiction.

Based upon the relevant and credible evidence presented, the court makes the following findings of fact.   Each party testified that the breakdown of their marriage was due to irretrievable differences without offering any details about the specific cause or causes that contributed to the demise of their marital relationship.   The plaintiff is 55 years old and described her health as fair at best.   She co-owns the Stamford Performing Arts Center with the defendant and drew one-half of the $90,000 annual profit from the business when it was operating.   From the time the center closed in 2011, the plaintiff has been unemployed.   Her financial affidavit reflects zero earned income.   However, at the trial, the plaintiff revealed that she just landed a job at Lord & Taylor's that pays $9.00 an hour.   She also testified that expects to work twelve to eighteen hours per week.   As for her marriage to the defendant, the plaintiff met the defendant while she was on a three-day vacation in Europe.   She was unemployed at the time.   Four years after the parties married, the plaintiff worked as a senior analyst for Combustion Engineering or ABB, as it was later known, in its human resources department from January 1990 until May or June of 1994.   Following the birth of the parties' children, the plaintiff became a homemaker.   The defendant is 57 years old and is, in his own words, in fairly good health except for some issues.   He was educated in Holland and has the U.S. equivalent of more than a high school but not quite a college degree.   The defendant has been engaged in several ventures.   Currently the defendant is the president of Prime Charter USA and a partner in Windmill Navigation, Ltd., both of which involve the logistics of transporting steel.   In addition, the defendant serves as the director for Calendmia, the parent company of Windmill.   The defendant's yearly draw from these businesses has declined from a high of $153,000 in 2008 down to a low of $78,000 from 2010 forward, which he attributed to the recession.   The financial affidavit submitted by the defendant shows a gross and net monthly income in the amount of $6,500 and $5,083, respectively, assets with a value of $729,887 and liabilities of $210,000.   He has been borrowing money from Prime Charter to pay his bills.   The defendant testified that he has been searching for employment but believes his age is a detriment.   Along with the effect of stagnant returns from their business interests, the value of the parties' marital home has been impacted as well.   According to the defendant's financial affidavit, the marital home, which was purchased in 2001, is presently worth $650,000.   However, it has negative equity because the combined total of the mortgages is $685,000.   The defendant ceased paying the $5,910 monthly mortgage on the marital home, which is in foreclosure.

In rendering its decision and fashioning the ensuing orders, the court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in General Statutes § 46b–56c as to educational support orders, § 46b–66a as to the conveyance of real property, §§ 46b–81 and 46b–82 regarding the assignment of the marital estate and alimony, respectively, and § 46b–62 regarding attorneys fees and the case law regarding these matters.   The court has also considered the parties' claims for relief and proposed orders.   Additionally, the court has examined parties' full exhibits and observed their demeanor during the trial.   Based on the foregoing, the court hereby enters the following orders.

Orders

1. Dissolution of the Marriage.   The marriage of the parties, having broken down irretrievably with no possibility of reconciliation, is hereby dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown effective on an even date herewith.   The parties are declared to be unmarried and single as of the date of judgment.

2. Alimony. The defendant shall pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $2,500 a month commencing on January 15, 2014 and then on or before the first day of each month thereafter during his lifetime, her lifetime, the plaintiff's remarriage or her cohabitation pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–86(b) or November 30, 2021, whichever shall occur first.

3. Medical Insurance.   Each party shall be responsible for their own medical insurance coverage as of the date of dissolution.   At his sole cost and expense, the defendant shall provide medical insurance coverage for the parties' children for so long as it is available to him through his businesses or any future employers until such time as each child attains the age of 23.

4. Educational Support.   The court finds that it was more likely than not that the parties would have provided post-secondary education support to their children if the family were intact.   Each party shall pay $5,000.00 per year per child for up to four years toward their children's post-secondary education following each child's high school graduation pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 46b–56(c).

5. Life Insurance.   The defendant shall maintain a life insurance policy with a two hundred and fifty thousand ($250,000) dollar death benefit for as long as he has an alimony obligation as set forth herein.   The defendant shall name the plaintiff as beneficiary on said policy until his support obligations terminate as set forth herein.   On an annual basis, within five (5) business days of the premium due date, the defendant shall provide the plaintiff with written proof from the insurance company that the annual premium for said policy has been paid.   The defendant shall instruct the insurance company to send written notification of delinquent premium payments and/or termination directly to the plaintiff at her address.

6. Attorneys Fees. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorneys fees ¹ and costs.

7. Marital Home. The parties jointly own real estate located at 78 Cricket Lane, Stamford, Connecticut (the “marital home”).   The parties shall immediately list the marital home for sale at $699,900 with Catherine Richardson of Keller Williams Realty in Stamford and shall cooperate in seeking a short sale or other arrangement if necessary.   Any offer within ten (10%) percent of the current listing price shall be accepted.   The parties shall lower the listing price by five (5%) percent every ninety days.   The parties shall equally share any net profit resulting from said sale and shall be equally responsible for any remaining deficiency.   The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all issues regarding the house.

8. Windmill Navigation, Ltd. The defendant shall transfer one-half of the sum held by the parties to the plaintiff minus payments made toward associated taxes, fees, and penalties, if any, within forty-five (45) days from the date of dissolution.   The sum is valued at $472,172 as of the date of dissolution.

9. Prime Charter Pension.   The parties shall equally divide their portion of the Prime Charter pension, which is approximately valued in the net amount of $229,000 as of the date of dissolution.   The parties shall divide this asset by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (the “QDRO”), which shall be drafted by Attorney Elizabeth McMahon.   The cost of drafting the QDRO shall be equally divided by the parties.

10. Prime Charter USA. The defendant shall retain his sole interest in his company, Prime Charter USA, and shall be solely responsible for all liabilities associated therewith.   The defendant shall further hold the plaintiff harmless from all liabilities therefrom.

11. Stamford Performing Arts Center.   The plaintiff shall retain her interest in the Stamford Performing Arts Center and shall be solely responsible for all liabilities associated therewith.   The plaintiff shall further hold the defendant harmless from all liabilities therefrom.

12. Joint ING Bank Account.   The remaining balance, valued as of the date of dissolution, shall be divided equally between the parties.

13. Vehicles. The plaintiff shall retain the 2004 Toyota Sequoia and the defendant shall retain the 1997 BMW 328ic and the 2003 Mercedes S500.

14. Personal Property.   The parties shall divide their personal property equitably and each party shall be entitled to retain the items of personal property owned by them prior to the marriage.   Notwithstanding the foregoing, the defendant shall retain the following items and be permitted to retrieve said items from the marital home within sixty (60) days from the dissolution of marriage:

a.  Mercedes Benz winter tires/wheels;

b. Clothing—his personal clothing;

c. Small black battery operated FM/AM travel radio;

d. One of the folding tables (either the beige or the black);

e.  Antique oval mirror armoire;

f. The studio speakers and amplifier;

g. One of the big screen televisions;

h. One of the regular amplifiers;

i.  Tannoy wood colored speakers from the living room;

j. Workout bench;

k. Defendant's mother's set of pans;

l. One-half of the CDs;

m. Drawings and other gifts he received from the minor children;  and

n. Pictures and videos of the children.

19. The court is aware of all of the varied other claims for relief or requests made by the parties that have been filed with the court in connection with the dissolution trial;  the court declines to issue orders not stated herein.

20. Both parties shall execute all necessary documents for the effectuation of these orders within thirty (30) days unless other specific times are already provided herein.

BY THE COURT,

SYBIL V. RICHARDS, JUDGE

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In light of the amount of marital estate that is distributed to the parties by virtue of the court's orders, the court does not find that this will cause an inequitable result when considering the law regarding the award of attorneys fees..  FN1. In light of the amount of marital estate that is distributed to the parties by virtue of the court's orders, the court does not find that this will cause an inequitable result when considering the law regarding the award of attorneys fees.

Richards, Sybil V., J.