Sally Colangelo v. Michael Colangelo (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action to dissolve the marriage of the plaintiff, Sally Colangelo, and the defendant, Michael Colangelo.   The parties tried the action as a limited contested matter on February 11, 2014.   The parties were the only witnesses.   The court has considered all of the credible evidence, statutory criteria, and case law pertaining to dissolution of marriage, the assignment of property and debts, and to all issues about which the court will enter orders.   The court finds the following facts and issues the following orders.

The parties married on May 7, 1982 in Harwinton, Connecticut.   The plaintiff's birth name was Chinatti.   The plaintiff lived in Connecticut for at least 12 months immediately before the filing of this action.   There are no minor children of the marriage.   Neither party has received financial support from the State of Connecticut or any municipality in the state.   The court has jurisdiction over the marriage.

The plaintiff is 56 years old and has a high school education.   She takes thyroid and blood pressure medication but is otherwise in good health.   At the time of the marriage she had two small children from a previous marriage who were raised by the parties.   In 1985 they had their own child who they raised and is now married herself.   The plaintiff has a master gardener certification which she has not put to use other than in her own gardens.   She has had other employment but for the past 15 years she has worked at a local package store.   She makes $13.25 per hour and works, on average, 35 hours per week.   Her net weekly wage is $398.

The defendant is 56 years old and is in good health.   Although he has no formal education beyond high school, he has been involved in the information technology field since he was trained as a programmer at an early job at Hartford Insurance Group.   Since that time he has been employed in this field or has been in business for himself as a consultant.   He currently works as an IT consultant for a Rhode Island company.   He has net weekly income of $1,323.88.

For many years the parties managed to work together to deal with the normal travails of married life.   However, their relationship was badly strained by the particular stresses posed by the personal and legal difficulties of the plaintiff's two older children.   Then, as the children left home, the parties seemed to have grown apart rather than together.   They lost the physical and emotional intimacy they had once shared.   The plaintiff was disappointed that the defendant worked such long hours and that he was often not home at night for dinner.   The defendant was disappointed that the plaintiff was not working longer hours or searching for a better job.   In November 2011 the defendant began a sexual affair.   The plaintiff found out about it and was shocked.   She confronted the defendant who did not deny the affair.   The plaintiff moved out of the marital home and now lives in a rental.   The defendant, who has since ended the affair, is not proud of his actions but believes that they were a symptom of the breakdown of the marriage, not the cause.   Although the defendant's actions will not be condoned by this court, they will not weigh heavily in the creation of the court's orders.

The parties have sold the marital home and have divided the proceeds equally.   Together with her four siblings as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, the plaintiff owns an undivided 20% interest in a family summer cottage on West Hill in New Hartford.   The only evidence is that the property has a total value of about $425,000.   The siblings share the payment of the yearly taxes.   The plaintiff's interest in the property has an uncertain value because of the problem of being able to sell it or borrow against it.

The parties agree that the plaintiff should receive periodic alimony but disagree as to the amount and duration.   The plaintiff proposes $525 per week for an indefinite duration.   The defendant proposes $200 for five years.   There is no question that the defendant's earnings exceed the plaintiff's and that periodic alimony should reflect a weighing of all the statutory factors.   Having made that weighing, the court will award alimony in the amount of $350 per week until the plaintiff turns 66.

A major expense for the parties is the financing for the two vehicles they drive.   The plaintiff drives a 2012 Subaru which was leased by the defendant.   The lease and insurance payment on the car is approximately $600 per month and has another 14 or 15 more months to run.   There is a mileage limit of 12,000 per year with a penalty of $.15 per mile.   There is no practical way to break this expensive lease.   The defendant drives 2010 BMW which he bought just before he lost his better-paying former job.   It has a value of $25,000 and a loan balance of $21,093.50 which he pays at $98 per week plus insurance of $33.95 per week (total of $131.95 per week or $567.39 per month.)   Clearly, the parties are driving more expensive cars then their income justifies.

The defendant has a rollover IRA with an approximate present value of $145,000.   He has a whole-life insurance policy in the face amount of $20,000 and a cash value of $6,548.04.   He has a term life insurance policy with a face amount of $552,000.

The parties have significant debt.   The defendant is responsible for student loan debt for their daughter in the form of two Nelnet “Parent Plus” student loans in the amounts of $7,591.18 and $43,306.19, both of which require a total loan payment of $123.96 per month.   The defendant owes $18,398.91 on a Chase credit card, $981.62 on a Citi–Sears credit card, $22,351.49 on a Bank of America credit card, $9,657.12 on an AT & T universal credit card and $7,177.53 on Bank of America overdraft protection on a joint checking account.   The parties stipulated that $15,000 of the defendant's credit card debt is related to his extra-marital affair.   The Plaintiff owes her attorney $12,660 and the defendant owes his attorney $4,454.   The court issues the following orders:

1. The marriage is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

2. The defendant shall pay periodic alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $350 per week.   Alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the remarriage of the plaintiff, or upon the plaintiff's 66th birthday, whichever occurs first.   The term of the alimony is non-modifiable.   Alimony is subject to suspension, reduction or termination based upon the terms of General Statutes § 46b–86(b).

3. The plaintiff shall retain her interest in the West Hill cottage, free and clear of any claims of the defendant.

4. Each party shall retain all items of personal property in his or her possession, free and clear of any claims of the other.

5. The plaintiff shall retain possession of the 2012 Subaru Outback, which is leased in the defendant's name.   The plaintiff shall assume responsibility for the payment of the lease and insurance payments on the vehicle as well as any excess mileage penalty at the end of the lease.   The plaintiff shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless for liability for these payments.   The $15,000 cash payment which the plaintiff will receive from the liquidation of a portion of the defendant's IRA is intended to reimburse her for these payments plus a small down-payment toward the purchase of a more-affordable car when the lease ends.

6. Each party shall be responsible for his or her own medical insurance.   The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff in obtaining COBRA coverage though his health insurance at this employment.

7. The defendant shall liquidate the entire balance of his roll-over IRA and shall pay all fees, penalties and costs associated with the liquidation.   The court anticipates that there will be a penalty for early withdrawal and that the IRA plan administrator will be required to withhold a sum for Federal and State income taxes owed by the defendant.   From the balance remaining, the following shall be paid:  the outstanding balances on the Chase credit card, the AT & T Universal credit card, the Sears Mastercard, the Bank of America overdraft account connected to the parties' joint checking account, the outstanding balances to attorneys Wing and Moots for work on this case, plus $15,000 to the plaintiff (as noted in Paragraph 5).   The remaining balance shall be divided equally between the parties.

8. The plaintiff shall pay the Prohealth debt shown on her financial affidavit.   The defendant shall be solely responsible for paying the balance of the Bank of America credit card and the Nelnet “Parent Plus” student loans.

9. The parties shall each retain their individual bank accounts, as listed on their financial affidavits.   The balances in all remaining joint bank accounts (if any) shall be divided equally between the parties and then closed.   The parties shall cooperate with each other in signing any documentation necessary to effectuate the closing of any joint bank accounts.

10. The defendant shall maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of at least $200,000 naming the plaintiff as beneficiary for so long as he continues to have an obligation to pay her alimony.   The defendant shall withdraw the one-half of the cash balance from his whole-life policy and shall pay it to the plaintiff.

11. The plaintiff's birth name of Chinatti is restored.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

Pickard, John W., J.