Caroline Pepsoski v. David Pepsoski

ResetAA Font size: Print

Superior Court of Connecticut.

Caroline Pepsoski v. David Pepsoski


    Decided: May 25, 2011



The plaintiff, Caroline Pepsoski, whose maiden name was Caroline Masse, and whose prior married name was Caroline Mormile, intermarried on July 11, 2009 in the city of Las Vegas, County of Clark, State of Nevada.

The parties have both resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for more than one year prior to the initiation of these proceedings.

The parties have both testified and agree that their marriage has broken down irretrievably with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

There have been no minor children born to the plaintiff during the marriage, nor was she pregnant at the time of trial in this matter.

This was the second marriage for the plaintiff and the first marriage for the defendant.

Neither the State of Connecticut nor any municipality, town, city or subdivision thereof is or did contribute to the support or maintenance of either the plaintiff or defendant during the marriage.

The duration of the parties' marriage will generously be found to be nine (9) months;  May 4, 2010 being the date of the complaint in this matter.

The parties met in December 2008, through E Harmony.   After a brief courtship, they married on July 11, 2009.

The plaintiff prior to the marriage owned a home in Durham, Connecticut which had no encumbrances and was valued at $356,500.00.   She had obtained the home by way of a property distribution from her first marriage dissolution.   She was receiving alimony payments from her first husband until June 2008.   She was receiving child support payments in the amount of $2002/month up to and through the duration of the marriage with the defendant.   Prior to the marriage with the defendant, the plaintiff worked sporadically doing facials and cleaning homes.   She listed gross sales/income for 2008 totaling $1,256 from her 2008 1040 tax return (See Defendant's B).  The plaintiff had minimal debt prior to the marriage to the defendant.

The defendant prior to the marriage owned a condominium unit in Waterbury, Connecticut which had a first mortgage and home equity line of credit as encumbrances which exceeded the $172,000 value of the unit.   He had additional debt in the form of a car loan on a Porsche automobile he owned, as well as credit card debt.   His additional debt amounted to approximately $50,000.00.   He was employed as an assistant principal in the Brookfield, Connecticut school system earning a $93,399 salary (See Defendant's C).

The parties began making plans to marry in the spring of 2009.   By the time of the wedding in July 2009, the parties had decided to sell the defendant's condominium and the plaintiff's home, with the plan to buy a home together which would be a closer commute for the defendant to go to work.   To effectuate this plan, they met with a mortgage consultant, who advised them that they needed to “scrub” his debt situation to qualify for a substantial mortgage.

The parties borrowed $50,000 each from their respective parents to pay down the debts.   They then took out a home equity line of credit from the plaintiff's home, which they could only qualify for by the defendant co-signing, since he was the income producer.   They used this home equity line to pay back their parents and for an eventual down payment on a home they purchased in Southbury, Connecticut at 51 Silver Beech Road.

The defendant sold his condominium in Waterbury on September 24, 2009 and realized no equity from his sale, after having paid all expenses and the first mortgage (see Plaintiff's 2).   The home equity loan on the condominium was paid down from the monies previously borrowed from the parents and then paid off by the plaintiff's home equity loan on the Durham home.

The plaintiff sold her Durham home on January 5, 2010 and after paying off expenses and the home equity line, she realized $181,349.21 in equity (See Plaintiff's 1).

They jointly purchased 51 Silver Beech Road, Southbury, Connecticut on January 5, 2010 for $536,200.   The plaintiff's equity was applied to the purchase and the parties obtained a $350,000 mortgage for the difference after paying fees and costs to close.

At the time the parties purchased the home in Southbury, their marriage relationship was breaking down.   The parties appear to have rushed into marriage without really knowing each other that well.   They were trying to get to know each other better through the marriage but it became more and more apparent to both of them that they were not as compatible as they had thought they were when they decided to marry.

They disagreed on whether the plaintiff should obtain steady/regular employment, as the defendant was supporting the household from his income primarily.   They disagreed on his socializing with his friends, she wanting to control his friends' access to the defendant.   They did not agree on the frequency or amount of intimacy between themselves;  she expecting more frequency and he desiring less frequency.   After a final attempt to try to make their marriage work with a trip to Puerto Rico in April 2010, the parties returned home from that trip with their marriage in a state of disrepair.   The plaintiff then filed the present action.


The court has taken into consideration the criteria set forth under General Statutes §§ 46b–81, 46b–82 and 46b–62 in entering the following orders.   The court has based its decision on the credibility of the testimony offered at trial, the exhibits entered into evidence, the proposed orders of the parties and argument of counsel.

The court enters the following orders:


The court finds that it has jurisdiction in this matter, that the allegations in the complaint are found to be proven and that the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably with no possibility of reconciliation.   Judgment shall enter dissolving the marriage of the parties.

Proceeds from Sale of the Marital Home

The plaintiff is awarded all the proceeds from the sale of the marital home, 51 Silver Beech Road, Southbury, Connecticut, in the amount of $139,927.75 which is currently being held in escrow.

Proceeds from Refunds Held in Escrow

The plaintiff is awarded all the proceeds from the Hanover Insurance refund ($795.70) and the Chase Mortgage refund ($4,101.10).   The 2009 Federal and State of Connecticut income tax refunds, respectively $11,982 and $1,668, shall be divided and awarded equally to each party in the amount of $6,825.

Personal Property

The parties have divided their personal property to each others' satisfaction.   Each party shall retain those respective assets as they appear on their financial affidavits including motor vehicles, bank and/or investment accounts and time shares.


Each party shall be solely responsible for those liabilities set forth in their respective financial affidavits and shall indemnify and hold each other harmless as to these liabilities.

Medical Insurance

Each party is responsible for obtaining and paying for their own respective medical insurance coverage.


Each party shall file individual Federal and State income tax returns of the 2010 year, with each party taking one-half of the deductions allowable for the marital home.


In view of the property distribution set out herein, the court finds that neither party is to be awarded alimony in this matter.   The court has considered the length of the marriage, age of the parties, their health, their employment history, occupations and sources of income in making its decision.

Counsel Fees

Neither party is awarded counsel fees in this matter.

Restoration of Name

It is ordered that plaintiff's previous marriage name, Mormile, is restored.

WHEREFORE, the marriage of the parties is hereby dissolved and the parties declared to be single and unmarried.   Judgment shall enter accordingly pursuant to the court's orders.


Agati, Salvatore C., J.

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title

      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More