Latonya Banson v. Ransford Banson (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This action was commenced by the plaintiff wife against the defendant husband by service of the Summons and Complaint on October 5, 2011 with a Return Date of October 25, 2011.   It was ultimately tried to the Court on diverse dates, with evidence concluding on February 4, 2014.

The plaintiff and defendant were married in St. Louis, Missouri on March 11, 2005.   There is one child as issue of this marriage:  Cecelia Banson, born on March 11, 2006.   The Court finds that at least one of the parties has continuously resided in the State of Connecticut prior to the commencement of the action, that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and that there is no hope of reconciliation.   The plaintiff is not currently pregnant and the couple did not receive state assistance during the marriage.   The Court finds that all jurisdictional prerequisites have been met.   Judgment may enter dissolving the marriage based on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

The Parties

Mr. and Mrs. Banson met online in a chat room prior to the marriage.   At that time, Mr. Banson was in college in North Carolina and Mrs. Banson was living and working in St. Louis, Missouri.   She lived with her mother and her son from another relationship.   Mrs. Banson completed high school after which she worked as a patient transporter at a local hospital from 1999 until her marriage to Mr. Banson in 2005.   Mr. Banson moved to the United States from Ghana to attend Guilford College on a four-year full scholarship.

The couple visited on school breaks until Mr. Banson's college graduation in May 2005.   After his graduation, he began working for a bank in North Carolina;  the couple moved to North Carolina and got an apartment.   She got a job within three months.   In March 2006, Cecelia was born.   Three months later, Mrs. Banson got a job in a local hospital.

Mr. and Mrs. Banson purchased a home in Winston–Salem, North Carolina that they still own.   They financed through a bank;  the decision was made together but Mrs. Banson does not know what Mr. Banson did with financing as he controlled all accounts and financial decisions.

In December 2007, the couple moved to South Carolina.   Mr. Banson began a job at another bank and the couple purchased another home so that he could be closer to his job.   Ironically, Mrs. Banson commuted back and forth to work at the hospital in North Carolina until 2010 when the couple moved to Connecticut.

Mr. Banson, a CPA, received an MBA from Duke University, taking online classes and going back to North Carolina sporadically.   He took a job at GE Capital in Connecticut in 2010.   The Bansons lived in two different apartments in Stamford until December 2011 when Mr. Banson moved out.   Mrs. Banson was unable to find work in Connecticut until November 2012 when she was hired by Stamford Hospital where she continues to work part time, per diem, in environmental services as a housekeeper.

Prior to coming to Connecticut, Mr. Banson leased two Mercedes automobiles at the combined amount of $1,000.00 per month.   Upon coming to Connecticut, Mr. Banson kept one car for himself and left Mrs. Banson with no transportation.   In 2012, he removed Mrs. Banson from his medical coverage.   While he paid the apartment rent out of concern for his “credit” and how it would affect his financial broker license, he left Mrs. Banson and Cecelia with no money to pay expenses.   He opened credit cards in Mrs. Banson's name and charged with them leaving $30,000 in debt.   Mrs. Banson has no idea how which charges were hers or his.   Mr. Banson filed joint tax returns for the couple;  he prepared them.   She never signed or saw them.

Additionally, Mr. Banson had multiple relationships with other women and called Mrs. Banson an “uneducated loser,” the “c” word and “lazy ghetto trash.”   During the marriage, there were allegations of domestic violence on both sides, especially when Mrs. Banson's son was living with them, and later as the marriage was disintegrating.

At one point during the pendency of this case, as a result of Mr. Banson providing her no support, Mrs. Banson gave custody of Cecelia to Mr. Banson as she was forced to live in motels and her car.   She was also on probation at her new job.   She was virtually homeless when a friend, Mr. Denny Smalls offered her the ability to stay at his apartment in Bridgeport.   Over the last two years, Mrs. Banson and Mr. Denny Smalls, began a romantic relationship.   She pays him no rent but she pays for all of her expenses.   It is Mrs. Banson's desire to return to Stamford on her own with Cecelia and live in an apartment.   She is on a waiting list for housing.   Mr. Banson is now engaged to be married to his fiancée who is pregnant with their child.

At the point when Mr. Banson left the marital home, he believed that Mrs. Banson was lazy and “enjoyed the gravy train.”   Mrs. Banson, however, wished to make the marriage work, despite the difficulties between the couple.   Mr. Banson wanted Mrs. Banson to become more educated so that she could bring more money to the marriage.   He claimed that “she wasn't ambitious enough” and further claimed that “being financially burdened took a toll on [him].”

Mr. Banson's debt, according to his Financial Affidavit dated 12/12/2013 is $363,718.00.   He acknowledges having made some “bone-headed decisions.”   Mr. Banson's Financial Affidavit indicates a yearly gross income of $142,226.24 and a yearly net income of $75,027.16.   With the exception of his Financial Affidavit, Mr. Banson offered absolutely no documentary evidence to substantiate his claims of earnings and/or liabilities.

Mrs. Banson's yearly gross wages are $22,178.52 and her yearly net wages are $19,914.96.   Mr. Banson provides approximately $3,000 in unallocated alimony and child support pursuant to the Court's pendente lite orders.

It is clear to the Court that Mr. Banson's reasoning and claims are often skewed.   He largely fails to grasp more literal concepts.   He remains judgmental, intractable and more unreasonable than not on almost every issue.   For example, Mr. Banson, prior to trial, has been incapable of agreeing on a parenting plan drafted and proposed by the GAL, Attorney Kirk Bennett.   At the commencement of trial, Mr. Banson wanted two more visitation days with Cecelia during the course of the month, both weekday nights which no one other than he supported.   At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Banson declared that he did not want weekday visitation at all and would gladly accept visitation every-other weekend as he and his fiancée wanted “flexibility” and were seeking to relocate out of State.   Similarly, Mr. Banson would have the Court believe that Mrs. Banson (at $22,000 yearly) was not a viable contributor to the household finances, as she lacked ambition.   Ironically, his fiancée, a college graduate, makes no more than $24,000 per year.

The Court has considered the statutory criteria as set forth in Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b–56, 46b–81, 46b–82 and 46b–84 including the Regulations containing the child support Guidelines pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–215a.   In light of both the evidence and statutory criteria, the Court issues the following orders:

Child Custody and Parenting

The parties shall have joint legal custody of their daughter Cecelia with physical custody to remain with Mrs. Banson.   The parties shall make joint decisions with regard to health and education.   If the parties are unable to agree, Mrs. Banson shall have final decision making.   Everyday, non-emergency decisions shall be made by the parent who has custody at the time.

Additionally, defendant will have rights of weekly visitation in alternating weeks as follows.

(a) In week one, from Tuesday afternoon following school or camp until Wednesday morning when she returns to school or camp, and from Friday afternoon following school or camp until Monday morning when she returns to school or camp.

(b) In week two, from Tuesday afternoon following school or camp until Wednesday morning when she returns to school or camp, and from Thursday afternoon following school or camp until Friday morning when she returns to school or camp.

(c) The parents shall share or alternate the holidays and school vacations as follows:

i.  Thanksgiving:  In odd-numbered years, the child shall be with her father from 9:00 a.m. on Thursday to 9:00 a.m. on Friday.   In even-numbered years, the child shall be with her mother from 9:00 a.m. on Thursday to 9:00 a.m. on Friday.   The alternating weekend parenting schedule will not otherwise be affected by Thanksgiving.

ii. Christmas:  The parents shall equally share the days constituting the Christmas Break.   In even-numbered years, the child shall be with her father from the commencement of Christmas Break, i.e., after school on the last day prior to the break, to 1:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, and with her mother for the balance of the break.   In odd-numbered years, this schedule shall be reversed.

iii. February and April School Breaks:  In odd-numbered years, the Father shall have the child for February Break and the mother shall have the child for April Break.   In even-numbered years, the mother shall have the child for February Break, and the father shall have the child for April Break.   In each instance, the vacation term shall be from Friday at 9:00 a.m. through the following Friday at 9:00 a.m., or from Monday at 9:00 a.m. through the following Monday at 9:00 a.m., depending upon which weekend of the vacation coincides with the vacationing parent's regular weekend in the rotating schedule.   The goal is to maintain the regular rotating weekend schedule.

iv. Summer Vacation:  Each of the parties shall be entitled to two non-consecutive (or, if they otherwise agree, in writing, consecutive) weeks' vacation with the child each summer, and will provide the other with at least sixty (60) days written notice of their intended summer vacation periods.   If there is a conflict, the mother's choice prevails in even-numbered years and the father's choice prevails in odd-numbered years.   The vacation term shall be from Friday at 9:00 a.m. through the following Friday at 9:00 a.m., or from Monday at 9:00 a.m. through the following Monday at 9:00 a.m., depending upon which weekend of the vacation coincides with the vacationing parent's regular weekend in the rotating schedule.   The goal is to maintain the regular rotating weekend schedule.

v. Memorial Day and Labor Day:  In odd-numbered years, the child shall be with her father on Memorial Day and with her mother on Labor Day. In even-numbered years, these holidays will be alternated.

vi. Fourth of July:  The child shall be with her father in even-numbered years and with her Mother in odd-numbered years, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. the following morning.

vii. Easter:  If it does not fall during April break, the child shall be with her mother in odd-numbered years and with her father in even-numbered years from 9:00 a.m. Sunday to 9:00 a.m. Monday.

viii. Mother's Day:  The child shall be with her mother on Mother's Day from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., if the day falls on father's regularly scheduled time.

ix. Father's Day:  The child shall be with her father on Father's Day from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., if the day falls on mother's regularly scheduled time.

x. Child's birthdays:  Irrespective of who is regularly scheduled to have parenting time with the child, both parties shall spend time with the child on her birthday.

xi. Mother's and Father's Birthdays:  Irrespective of who is regularly scheduled to have parenting time with the child, she shall have time with her parents on their respective birthdays.

xii. It is understood and agreed that when the children have parenting time with one party during summer, school vacation, holiday and special days, the other parent's regular access is suspended.   The regular access schedule shall resume following the end of each vacation period.   The goal is to ensure that the regular rotating schedule is not affected, Martin Luther King Day, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas Day.

Alimony and Child Support

Mr. Banson and Mrs. Banson submitted Child Support Guidelines.   The worksheet submitted by Mr. Banson is acceptable to the Court.   He is ordered to pay $255 per week Child Support in accordance with the Guidelines and Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–84(b).  Additionally, and in accordance with the Guidelines, Mr. Banson shall be responsible for 66% of Cecelia's unreimbursed medical expenses and child care expenses.

The parties shall contribute to all mutually agreed upon summer programs, extra curricular activities and sports expenses at 66% for Mr. Banson and 34% for Mrs. Banson.   Consent is not to be unreasonably withheld.

The Court finds that if this family had remained intact, the parties would have wished their daughter to pursue post-secondary education.   This Court retains jurisdiction over post-secondary educational support pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–56(c).

During trial, Mr. Banson made a plea to the court that he should be excused from paying alimony because Mrs. Banson is “cohabiting” with Mr. Denny Smalls.   His proposed orders purport to offer his alimony payment for one dollar ($1.00) per year for three years.

This court declines to grant Mr. Banson's proposed order.   The court has read Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–86(b) and, in conjunction with the testimony from Mrs. Banson, finds that her financial needs have not improved as a result of her residing with Mr. Denny Smalls whether the couple is engaged in a relationship or not.   Mrs. Banson lives with Mr. Denny Smalls rent-free;  she pays her own expenses.   If anything, the couple's desire to maintain Cecelia's schooling in Stamford has increased her travel expenses.   Mr. Banson failed to provide any evidence to this court to demonstrate that Mrs. Banson's living arrangements impacted her financial circumstances or needs in any way.   See Nation–Bailey v. Bailey, 144 Conn.App. 319 (2013);  Lehan v. Lehan, 118 Conn.App. 685, 697–98 (2010);  cf Schwarz v. Schwarz, 124 Conn.App. 472 (2010).

The court, therefore orders Mr. Banson to pay alimony to Mrs. Banson in the amount of $1,500.00 per month, payable on the first of the month commencing April 1, 2014.   Alimony is to continue for five years, and shall terminate with the March 1, 2019 payment.

Medical Insurance

Mr. Banson shall be solely responsible to provide medical and hospitalization insurance for the benefit of the minor child.   All uninsured or unreimbursed medical, dental, or other related medical costs shall be paid in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.   Mr. Banson shall cooperate and assist Mrs. Banson with whatever COBRA benefits are available to her;  she will be responsible for those premium payments.

Life Insurance

For as long as he is obligated to pay alimony and/or child support, Mr. Banson shall maintain life insurance in the amount of $300,000 for the benefit of Mrs. Banson and Cecelia.

Real Property

As for the property that is jointly owned in Winston–Salem, North Carolina, Mrs. Banson shall quit-claim her interest in the property to Mr. Banson.   Mr. Banson shall be solely responsible for the debt on that property and will hold Mrs. Banson harmless with respect thereto.

Financial Assets

Each party will retain the balances in the checking and savings accounts held in each of their individual names, including Mr. Banson's GE credit union account and his GE 401K. Any monies still existing in a joint account under the control of Mr. Banson shall be divided equally between the parties.   Any monies still existing in a joint account under the control of Mrs. Banson shall remain with her.

Debts and Liabilities

Each party shall be solely responsible for all debts and liabilities appearing on their respective financial affidavits with the exception of fees owing to GAL Kirk Bennett.   Each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party relating to debts that appear on the financial affidavits.

Income Taxes

For the years 2012 and thereafter, the parties shall file separate tax returns.   In the event that prior tax returns are challenged, Mr. Banson shall hold Mrs. Banson harmless from any liabilities arising from taxes, assessments, penalties, interest, deductions, credits or errors that may have been made in the filings of those returns.

Personal Property

With the exception of Mrs. Banson's agreement to give Mr. Banson the spare key to his car and certain personal documents, all personal property has been previously divided.   Family videos and photos will be copied and exchanged.

Counsel and GAL Fees

The GAL Kirk Bennett has incurred fees in excess of $15,000.   It is readily apparent to the Court that his fees would have been negligible but for the lack of cooperation on the part of Mr. Banson in all aspects of this case, most notably the attempts to formulate a Parenting Plan. It is inconceivable that Mr. Banson, in his proposed order, requested that Mrs. Banson pay 75% of Attorney Bennett's fees.   At trial, he proposed that she pay 2/3 of those fees.   The Court orders Mr. Banson to pay Attorney Bennett the sum of $10,000 for his GAL fees.

Mrs. Banson's attorney, Christopher Burdett, took this case on her behalf pro bono.   He argued quite aptly, that the trial in this case “never should have happened.”   The Court agrees that had Mr. Banson been reasonable, this couple could have and should have settled their differences without causing hardship to each other.   Had he billed for representing Mrs. Banson, Attorney Burdett's fees as of December 2013 were $25,000.   There is no more compelling case for attorney fees than this one.   In accordance with the court's holding in Benavides v. Benavides, 11 Conn.App. 150 (1987), the Court hereby orders Mr. Banson to pay $15,000 to Attorney Burdett for his fees in representing Mrs. Banson.

Both GAL fees and Attorney fees are ordered to be paid in full on or before May 1, 2014.

BY THE COURT

EMONS, J.

Emons, Jane B., J.