Lisa Fritz v. James C. Fritz (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff wife initiated this action by way of a complaint filed on December 18, 2012, seeking the dissolution of the parties' marriage based upon irretrievable breakdown and seeking joint custody of the minor children.   Both parties were represented by counsel.   Both parties appeared and testified at trial.   Numerous exhibits were entered as well.

The court has fully considered the criteria set forth in Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b–81, 46b–82, 46b–84, and 46b–62 as well as the evidence, applicable case law, the demeanor and credibility of the parties and arguments of counsel in finding the facts and in reaching the conclusions reflected in the orders in this decision.

1. Factual Findings

This court finds the following by a fair preponderance of the evidence.   The court has jurisdiction of this matter and all statutory stays have expired.   At least one of the parties has continuously resided in the state of Connecticut for at least one year prior to the filing of this action.   The allegations of the complaint have been proven.   The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably with no possibility of reconciliation.   Neither party has received state or local financial assistance during the marriage.

The parties were married on October 9, 1993 in Killingworth, Connecticut.   Two children have been born to the parties:  Christopher, born November 11, 1999 and Eric, born July 9, 1994.   The parties submitted a Joint Parental Responsibility Plan dated April 22, 2013, previously made a court order, which by their agreement is accepted by the court.   They also agree that the defendant will maintain medical insurance for the remaining minor child, and life insurance naming both children as beneficiaries until each attains the age of twenty-three.   Further, they have agreed as to the distribution of the 2012 state and federal income tax debt and the payment obligations, as well as how the dependency exemption for their minor son will alternate between them.   They have a minor difference of opinion on the amount of the child support.   Their major claims are about the amount and duration of any alimony payment, the payment of COBRA medical insurance for the wife, the distribution of their assets, taking into account the various family contributions to their living expenses and assets over time.

The plaintiff is now fifty-one (51) years of age and is a certified pre-school teacher with some credits toward a college degree.   She is the director of a children's center and also a teacher of the four-year olds in the program.   She has been employed there for ten years, and for the last few years has been working full time.   She did not work outside the home in the earlier years of the marriage, as she was home raising the parties' two boys.   Her earnings are approximately one-third of the earnings of her husband, as shown on their respective financial affidavits filed with the court, which amounts the court credits.   She receives no benefits through her employment and is paid a base salary with an hourly rate paid to her for the hours that she works over 40 hours per week.   To secure medical insurance coverage post-divorce on the defendant's medical insurance plan would cost her a minimum of $552 per month and a maximum of $601 per month.

Her health has suffered, due to her smoking, and she is in the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, for which she as yet receives no medical treatment.   She has some arthritis and is unable to engage in rigorous sustained exercise or movement.   She is, nonetheless, able to work full time and engage in normal daily living activities.

Presently she resides in a one-bedroom in-law apartment in a home owned by her sister and pays $700 a month in rent.   The parties' oldest son, Eric now nineteen (19), lives with her.   He is employed and is not a student any longer.   During the times Christopher, the youngest child, stays with her, the living arrangements in the apartment become very crowded.

The defendant is the same age as his wife and has a high school diploma.   He is in good health and is employed by a news organization.   He is a salaried employee and receives benefits, including medical coverage.   His financial affidavit filed with the court indicated he earns approximately three times the amount of his wife's earnings.   He has worked throughout the marriage as the primary wage earner.

He remains in the marital home in Middletown, Connecticut.   This residence has very little or negative equity, if it were sold.   It is in his name alone, as at the time of the purchase in 2000, Mrs. Fritz had recently filed for bankruptcy and had no credit.   The real estate was appraised as having a value of $245,000 as of May 24, 2012.¹  While the Court received into evidence a certified copy of the assessor's card from the Town of Middletown, indicating a fair market value of $259,310, the date of the valuation was not provided.   The court concludes that the appraised value is the more realistic one, given present market conditions and so finds.   The amounts of the first and second mortgages leave a negative equity of approximately $4,400.   The plaintiff makes no claim to the property and the defendant has been paying all costs associated with it, including both mortgages and is prepared to continue to do so.

Like many families raising children, the earnings of this couple have never been adequate to sustain their lifestyle and for many years, each has received gifts and loans from family in order to maintain the home and pay bills.   Plaintiff's family provided them with $30,000 since the purchase of the marital home in 1999;  consisting of a $6,000 contribution to its purchase, $3,000 for a sewer and water connection, $10,000 for new windows and bills, which had accumulated, and an additional $10,000 for painting and general upkeep.   In addition, since the separation of the parties, the wife's mother has given her $10,000 towards the purchase of two used vehicles, which are in her name.

In addition, after the death of her father in 2006, the plaintiff received funds from her father's pension accounts, one of which now must be rolled over into an IRA or 401K. In 2010, and 2011, the pension distributions to the plaintiff totaled approximately $6,000 per annum and in 2012, a total of $27,000.   The yearly pension distributions, as of December 2013, are at an end.   Both accounts now have a combined value of $23,700.   The large pension distribution in 2012 clearly contributed to the joint federal and state income tax liability for 2012, which the parties are still paying.

The defendant recently, prior to the parties' separation and over the objection of his wife, borrowed $15,000 from his family.   In total, over the course of time he has borrowed approximately $40,000 from them.   While much was made of two vacations he recently took, the court concludes that very little was in fact spent on such trips.   He also removed considerable funds from the 401K account he has from his former place of employment.

The continual income shortfalls and inability to meet all of their expenses took a significant toll on the marriage of the parties.   And in addition, the defendant cites a lack of intimacy over many years in the relationship.   Nonetheless, the parties have certainly tried very hard to remain together.   On three separate occasions they sought therapy to repair their relationship and continue their marriage so they could raise their two boys together.   They are to be commended for their efforts, even if unavailing in the final analysis.   It is apparent that neither is at fault in the breakdown of the relationship;  rather theirs is a marriage, like many, where the early closeness and love they enjoyed, did not grow into a stronger bond.   Unfortunately, their various incompatibilities and financial stresses caused them to grow apart through the nineteen years of their marriage.

This court has considered all of the factors set forth in Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–81 and § 46b–82, including but not limited to the causes of the breakdown of the marriage, the ages of the parties, the length of the marriage and the employability and health of the parties, as well as their opportunity for the future income and assets.   For all of the foregoing reasons, the following orders are entered:

2. Orders

Dissolution

The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

Custody, Support and other Child Related Orders

Joint Legal Custody:  In accord with the parties' agreement and parental responsibility plan, the parties shall share joint legal custody of the minor child, who shall continue to attend school in the Middletown School District.   All of the detailed provisions of the plan are hereby entered as orders of the court and incorporated by reference herein.

Child support:  The defendant shall pay $200 per week in child support, substantially in accordance with the child support guidelines for the benefit of the minor child.

Health insurance:  The defendant shall continue to provide health insurance for the benefit of the minor child for so long as it is available through his employment at reasonable cost to him.   The court approves of the defendant's plan to maintain the older child for so long as he is able, but does not enter any orders with regard to him.

Unreimbursed Medical Expenses:  The parties shall divide equally unreimbursed medical expenses for Christopher.   This shall include all unreimbursed or uninsured medical, dental, orthodontic, ophthalmological, and prescription expenses reasonably incurred on behalf of Christopher, until he attains the age of twenty-three (23) if he is the subject of a post-majority educational support order, and if not, until he attains the age of majority.

Post-majority educational support:  Each party shall reserve his/her right to file a future motion or petition for an educational support order for Christopher, in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56c.   They have waived their right to do so for Eric, now nineteen and no longer a student.

Dependency Deduction:  The parties shall alternate the dependency deduction for Christopher, with the plaintiff claiming him in even numbered years, beginning in 2014 and the defendant in odd numbered years, beginning in 2015.

Alimony:  The defendant is to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $100 per week in periodic alimony, for a period of seven (7) years from the date of this judgment.   This amount is based on the net incomes of the parties, as shown on their financial affidavits, and taking into account the relevant statutory criteria.   Alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party and on the wife's cohabitation pursuant to the statute, which ever shall first occur.   It shall be modifiable upon a showing of a substantial change in the financial circumstances of either party.

Health Insurance:  The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff in assisting her to secure continuation medical insurance coverage through his place of employment.   Such coverage shall be at the plaintiff's expense.

Assets:  The defendant shall retain the marital home, free and clear of any claims of the plaintiff.   Such outstanding liabilities on the family home are in his name and will continue to be his responsibility.   There is no equity in the property.   The defendant shall retain the retirement assets listed on his financial affidavit that are in his name, as well as the vehicles in his possession and titled in his name.

The plaintiff shall retain the retirement assets listed on her financial affidavit that are in her name, which came to her from her father.   The court declines to equalize these assets, as had the defendant's 401K account not been depleted recently, that account would contain approximately the same as those accounts the plaintiff is retaining.   The vehicles in the plaintiff's possession shall be retained by her.

Liabilities:  Each party shall be responsible for the payment of all of the debts listed on her or his financial affidavit.

Personal Property:  The parties have indicated that with the exception of their Heritage Village pieces, they have divided their personal property between them.   Given their ability to cooperate, the court trusts that this will proceed without incident.   Should the parties be unable to reach an agreement on those items, this court will retain jurisdiction on that issue.

Attorneys fees:  The parties shall each be responsible for their own attorneys fees.

BY THE COURT

Barbara M. Quinn, Judge Trial Referee

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Defendant's Exhibit 5, Appraisal of Real Property..  FN1. See Defendant's Exhibit 5, Appraisal of Real Property.

Quinn, Barbara M., J.