Sally Gabriel v. Guinxe Gabriel (2016)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This an action commenced by the plaintiff wife by complaint dated May 30, 2014 and made returnable to this court on July 15, 2014.  The matter was tried to the court on March 17, 2016.  Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present for the trial and each was represented by counsel.  Testimony was received from the plaintiff and the defendant.  The parties filed financial affidavits and exhibits were entered by the court.

From the testimony and evidence produced at the trial and after assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the following facts to have been proven.

The parties were intermarried on August 4, 2012 in East Windsor, Connecticut.  The plaintiff and the defendant have no children issue of their marriage and no children were born to the plaintiff since the date of the marriage of the parties.  Neither party is currently receiving any state, federal or local assistance.  The plaintiff has resided in this state for more than one year immediately prior to the filing of the application.  The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the marriage.

The plaintiff is currently employed as an intake supervisor for an infusion provider.  At the present time she earns approximately $45,000.00 a year.  When she was first married she was earning $39,000.00 a year.  In addition, at the present time she is not working full time due to a medical issue.  Her financial affidavit reflects that she earns $706.00 a week from her employment.  She lists debts of $460.00 for a credit card on her financial affidavit.

The plaintiff attributes the breakdown of the marriage to infidelity by her husband.

She also has had medical problems, some of which became evident to her after the parties separated.

The plaintiff and the defendant had know each other and were in a relationship for many years prior to their marriage of August 4, 2012.  The plaintiff filed for a dissolution of marriage by complaint dated May 30, 2014 and left the marital home on June 4, 2014.  She and the husband attempted reconciliation and engaged in counseling.  She withdrew her dissolution of marriage action on February 3, 2015 but reopened it by her motion dated May 29, 2015 which was granted by the court on June 17, 2015.

The defendant is employed as a director of pharmacy services and earns approximately $3,200.00 a week gross and nets $2,118.00 according to his financial affidavit.  In addition, on his financial affidavit he lists negative $51,320.00 equity in the real estate he owns in Pomfret, Connecticut and has unsecured debt of $51,200.00 including $37,600.00 in credit card debt.  He also has an account with $2,300.00 in it.  The defendant attributes the breakdown of the marriage to financial issues and discord between the parties.  While the parties were separated, he voluntarily paid significant expenses for the funeral and associated costs for the death of the plaintiff's father.  In addition, he has also voluntarily contributed to the travel expenses of the plaintiff's son from another relationship.  He is willing to be solely responsible for the significant credit card debts as listed on his financial affidavit.  Although the plaintiff was ordered by the court to pay the car payments for the Toyota automobile, the plaintiff did not do so and the car was subsequently ordered by the court to be returned to the defendant who had to make car payments that were the responsibility of the plaintiff.

The court finds that this has been a very short marriage.  The parties were married on August 3, 2012 and were separated on June 4, 2014.  The plaintiff filed her dissolution of marriage action by complaint dated May 30, 2014.  Although the parties attempted on numerous occasions to reconcile, they have been unable to do so.  The plaintiff resides in Georgia and the defendant resides in Texas.  They have been separated for almost the past two years.  Although the defendant has significantly more income than the plaintiff, he has a very high level of debt with the plaintiff having almost no debt.  Neither of the parties have been able to accumulate any significant assets.  The court does not find that an award of alimony is appropriate in this case.

The court will note that the plaintiff has not fully complied with the discovery orders previously entered in this case and only submitted a sworn financial affidavit the day of the trial.

After taking into consideration the statutory criteria set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes as well as the applicable case law and applying the same to the evidence, the court enters the following orders.

1. A decree is entered dissolving the marriage of the parties on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown.

2. No alimony is awarded to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant shall each be responsible for their own medical insurance at their own expense.

4. The parties have divided their personal property to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.

5. The parties shall retain ownership of their respective real property, motor vehicles, bank accounts, savings accounts, and retirement accounts, free and clear of any claim to each other's assets.  The defendant shall be responsible for the debt, taxes and any insurance due on the Toyota Rav 4 automobile.

6. The parties shall each be responsible for their own debts and liabilities as listed on their respective financial affidavits.

7. Each party shall be responsible for his or her attorneys fees or costs.

Graziani, Judge of the Superior Court

Graziani, Edward C., J.