Reginas Minick v. Woodrow Minick (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This dissolution of marriage action was commenced by the plaintiff, Reginas Minick, against the defendant, Woodrow Minick, by summons and complaint dated July 18, 2013, and made returnable to this court on August 27, 2013.   The case was tried before the court on February 3, 2014 and February 24, 2014.   Both parties represented themselves.   The issues in dispute concern finances and distribution of the marital estate.   The parties agreed to the terms of a parenting plan.   The court heard testimony from both parties.

Upon careful consideration of the evidence presented and the pertinent statutory law, in particular General Statutes §§ 46b–82 (alimony), 46b–56 (custody, care, education, visitation and support of children), 46b–81 (assignment of the marital estate), and 46b–56c (educational support orders), and the relevant case law, and having observed the demeanor of the parties at trial, the court finds and orders as follows.

I

Jurisdiction

The plaintiff and the defendant were married on August 8, 1998, in New Haven, Connecticut.   The parties continuously lived in the State of Connecticut for at least one year before this action was filed.   All statutory stays have expired.   The court has jurisdiction over this matter.

II

Discussion

The parties have been married for fifteen years.   This is the third marriage for the plaintiff and the first marriage for the defendant.   There is one minor child issue of the marriage:  Teresa-shr'ie Destiny Minick (DOB:  11/19/99).   The plaintiff has four adult children from prior relationships.   The defendant has five adult children from prior relationships.   The plaintiff is not currently pregnant.   Neither the parties nor the minor child are presently receiving state or municipal assistance.

The plaintiff is 51 years old and is in good health.   She holds an Associate of Child Care degree and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Theology, Biblical Studies, which she obtained in 2010.   Early in the parties' marriage, the plaintiff operated a day care center from the parties' home.   She was later employed full-time as a head teacher at Kindercare Learning Center for a combined period of approximately ten years.   The plaintiff currently works part-time for the City of Branford as a meter maid earning $16.13 per hour and part-time at an afterschool child care program earning $12 an hour.   While the weekly hours of her jobs vary, between the two she ordinarily grosses approximately $351 per week ($18,252 annualized) and nets approximately $285 per week ($14,820 annualized).

The defendant is 56 years old and is in good health.   He graduated from high school and holds a commercial driver's license.   He is employed full-time as a bus driver for Greater Bridgeport Transit and earns $23.87 per hour, with some overtime which is paid at the rate of time and a half.   The defendant grosses approximately $955 per week ($49,660 annualized) and nets approximately $765 per week ($39,780 annualized).

The parties separated in July 2013.   Prior to that time they resided together in the marital home located at 38 Ardale Street, West Haven, Connecticut.   The defendant purchased the property while the parties were dating, approximately two years before they were married.   Title to the property is held in the defendant's name only.   The plaintiff testified that she believed the fair market value of the property was approximately $157,000.   The defendant testified that he believed the fair market value of the property was approximately $185,000.   The court credits the defendant's testimony and finds that the fair market value of the property is $185,000.   See Misico v. LaMaita, 150 Conn. 680, 684, 192 A.2d 891 (1963) (an owner of real property is competent to testify as to its market value).

At the time of trial, the outstanding principal balance due on the mortgage note was $195,896.   The parties agree, and the court finds, that there is no equity in the property beyond the mortgage indebtedness.   The defendant is solely liable for payment of the mortgage indebtedness;  the plaintiff is not an obligor on the mortgage note.   The defendant's monthly mortgage payment is approximately $2,100.   The mortgage payments are current.

The defendant continues to reside in the marital home.   One of the plaintiff's adult daughters also resides there.   The plaintiff resides in a subsidized apartment operated by the West Haven Housing Authority.   Her current rental obligation is $307 per month.   The plaintiff's adult son also resides in the apartment with the plaintiff.   The parties share physical custody of their minor child.

Throughout the term of the parties' marriage, the defendant provided the financial support to the household.   He paid the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities and related expenses for the marital home.   He was also responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and repair of the property.   The plaintiff made minimal financial contributions to the household expenses;  however, she was primarily responsible for managing the household during the parties' marriage.   The parties maintained separate bank accounts throughout their marriage.

In 2009, the defendant was involved in a work-related accident which resulted in the termination of his employment.   He was unemployed for approximately six months after which he obtained comparable full-time employment but at a reduced wage.   The defendant's income has just recently reached the level he was earning when his prior employment terminated.   The plaintiff worked full-time for the majority of the marriage, but presently works part-time.   Given her prior work history, the court finds that the plaintiff is working below her full earning capacity.

Both parties were actively involved in the minor child's upbringing.   With the assistance of Family Relations, the parties entered into a Parenting Agreement dated February 3, 2014, pursuant to which they agreed, among other things, to share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child.   Both parties completed the Parenting Education Program.   The court finds the Parenting Agreement is fair and equitable under the circumstances and in the best interest of the minor child.   The parties stipulated, and the court finds, that it is more likely than not that the parties would have provided support to the minor child for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact.

The parties submitted two child support guideline worksheets to the court, both dated February 3, 2014.   One worksheet reflects the plaintiff as custodial parent, the other worksheet reflects the defendant as custodial parent.   The court finds, based upon the weekly gross income as set forth on the parties' respective financial affidavits (i.e., plaintiff:  $391 and defendant:  $955) and consistent with both child support guidelines worksheets that the weekly net income of the plaintiff is $317 and the weekly net income of the defendant is $955.   The court finds further that based upon a combined weekly net income of the parties in the amount of $1,070, the presumptive basic child support is $238 per week;  that the plaintiff's share of this obligation is $71 per week and that the defendant's share is $167 per week.   The court also finds that the presumptive apportionment of unreimbursed medical expenses is 45% to the plaintiff and 55% to the defendant if the plaintiff is the custodial parent, but 23% to the plaintiff and 77% to the defendant if the defendant is the custodial parent.

At the commencement of trial, the parties agreed and proposed to the court that neither should pay child support to the other due to their shared physical custody of the minor child and that unreimbursed medical expenses should be allocated 50/50 between the parties.   The minor child is not presently insured;  however, the plaintiff is in the process of applying for HUSKY benefits for the child.   The court finds that application of the guidelines would be inequitable and inappropriate in this case and that deviation from the guidelines as agreed by the parties is warranted due to the shared physical custody of the minor child, the parent's earning capacity, the division of assets and liabilities and the provision of alimony.

The plaintiff seeks dissolution of the marriage.   The court finds that the allegations of the complaint are proven and true.   The parties' marriage has broken down irretrievably and there is no hope of reconciliation.   The marriage clearly suffered as a result of the parties' inability to communicate with one another.   However, neither party bears greater responsibility than the other for the breakdown of the parties' fifteen-year marriage.

III

Orders1. Dissolution

The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.   The parties are declared single and unmarried.

2. Alimony

a. No alimony is awarded to the defendant.

b. The defendant shall pay periodic alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $50 per week for a term of five (5) years.   Payments shall be made on the Friday of each week with the first payment being due on March 7, 2014.   Alimony shall terminate upon the first of the following events to occur:  (i) the death of either party;  (ii) the remarriage of the plaintiff;  or (iii) March 7, 2019.   Alimony is modifiable as to amount but not modifiable as to term;  provided however, that alimony may be modified, suspended, reduced or terminated as provided in General Statutes § 46b–86(b) in the event of the plaintiff's cohabitation with a person other than one or more of her children.

3. Custody and Visitation

The court approves and incorporates herein by reference the parties' Parenting Agreement dated February 3, 2014.

4. Child Support

Neither party shall pay child support to the other.   This amount represents a deviation from the child support guidelines as stated above.

5. Unreimbursed Medical Expenses

Unreimbursed medical expenses shall be paid 50% by the plaintiff and 50% by the defendant in accordance with the provisions of General Statutes § 46b–84.   This amount represents a deviation from the Child Support Guidelines as stated above.

6. Health Insurance

a. Each party shall be responsible for the procurement and cost of his/her own health insurance.

b. The parties shall cooperate in enrolling the minor child in the HUSKY Insurance Program;  provided, however, that either party shall provide health insurance for the benefit of the minor child if such insurance becomes available to him/her at a reasonable cost not to exceed 5% of that party's net income.

7. Educational Support Order

The court reserves jurisdiction to determine whether to enter an educational support order and, if so, the terms of that order pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–56c.

8. Extracurricular Activities

The parties shall discuss, in advance, any extracurricular activity, enrichment program and/or summer camp activities for the benefit of the minor child.   Only such activities as may be agreed upon by the parties shall be considered an approved activity for enforcement under these orders, but neither party shall unreasonably withhold his or her approval.   The cost of all approved activities shall be shared equally by the parties.   Any activity not approved by both parties may still be engaged in by the child so long as the activity does not interfere with the parenting access time of the other parent and the cost of said activity is covered entirely by the parent engaging the child in such activity.

9. Income Tax Dependency Exemptions

As agreed by the parties in the Parenting Agreement dated February 3, 2014, the parties shall alternate claiming the minor child as a dependent for income tax filings with the plaintiff taking the exemption in odd years and the defendant taking the exemption in even years.

10. Marital Home

The defendant shall retain sole ownership and have exclusive possession of the marital home located at 38 Ardale Street, West Haven, Connecticut.   The defendant shall be solely responsible for payment of the mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities, as well as the maintenance and upkeep of the property, and shall hold the plaintiff harmless for same and shall indemnify her for any liability arising therefrom.

11. Motor Vehicles

Each party shall own, free and clear of any claim by the other, the motor vehicle(s) listed on his/her respective financial affidavit.   Each party shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with the ownership and operation of said vehicle(s), including the personal property taxes and insurance, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party from any liability therefrom.

12. Bank Accounts

Each party is awarded, free and clear of any claim by the other, the bank accounts listed on his/her respective financial affidavit.

13. Retirement Accounts

The plaintiff shall own, free and clear of any claim by the defendant, the retirement plan listed on her financial affidavit.

14. Other Personal Property

a. The plaintiff is awarded, free and clear of any claim by the defendant, the following personal property:  her personal effects, jewelry, clothing, coffee table, sewing items, picture over the mantel, photos in the kitchen, mirrors, items related to her prior daycare business, gardening tools and accessories and all items of personal property that were the subject of the court's order dated October 3, 2013.

b. The defendant is awarded, free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff, the following personal property:  his personal effects and all furniture and furnishings in the marital home not expressly identified in subparagraph a above.

c. Both parties shall use their best efforts and cooperate with one another to arrange for the timely removal of the plaintiff's personal property from the marital home and the delivery of same to the plaintiff's residence;  provided, however, that the plaintiff shall remove her personal property from the marital home not later than sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment.

15. Debts and Liabilities

Each party shall be solely responsible for payment of the debts and liabilities listed on his/her respective financial affidavit and each party shall hold the other party harmless and indemnify the other from all liability therefrom.

16. Restoration of Name

The plaintiff's name is restored to:  Reginas D. Jones.

Morgan, J.

Morgan, Lisa K., J.