Opinion
HHBFA144035087
02-27-2017
Christine Ferraro v. David Ferraro, Jr
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Barry C. Pinkus, J.
This action for dissolution of marriage and other relief was brought to this court on June 03, 2014. The case went to judgment after a trial (Shah, J.) on May 6, 2015.The plaintiff filed an appeal and this case was remanded from the Appellate Court with directions to have a hearing on all financial issues. The remand hearing was held by the court on January 31 and February 3, 2017.
The court listened to and observed witnesses, and reviewed the exhibits. In addition the court carefully considered the criteria set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes and case law in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders below.
The court finds the following facts. The parties were married on April 9, 1994 in Bristol, Connecticut. The parties have two minor children issue of the marriage. The testimony indicates that the party's relationship was often contentious from 2001 (after the birth of the second child) until 2011. Since 2011, the parties have been engaged in litigation and criminal complaints resulting in the commencement of the present action in 2014. The plaintiff claims the breakdown of the marriage was caused by the defendant's controlling and abusive behavior. The plaintiff testified that the defendant would often degrade her in front of the children. She also stated that the defendant's parents were very controlling and intrusive and that the defendant would side with his parents over her. The defendant claims that the party's problems were caused by the plaintiff's unfounded jealousy, insecurity and financial irresponsibility. The defendant testified that there were periods of good times but when the plaintiff " went on the crazy train" things were not good. It is difficult to determine whether one party was more responsible than the other in causing the breakdown of the marriage.
The plaintiff worked regularly from the time of the marriage until 2012. In 2010 she was " wrongfully terminated" from her job. Since that time she worked less frequently. She stated that in 2012 that she left her job at Bristol Hospital. At that time it was her desire to be home with the children. In 2015 she was fired from a job with a medical group after four weeks for excessive absenteeism. In 2016 she was fired from a job in Farmington with Ultimate Nutrition, after a few weeks. This job paid $15.50 an hour. The basis for termination was excessive tardiness. The plaintiff's only current source of income is alimony and child support from the defendant
The defendant has been employed by the State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation for twenty-two years. His job title is Transportation Engineer III. He acts as a construction project manager on state road projects. The defendant earned approximately $125,000 in 2016 and approximately the same at the time of judgment. The orders below are based upon the net earnings of the parties as the court has taken into consideration the deductions which are set forth on the defendant's paystub dated 12/22/16 (exhibit 3).
The defendant is claiming a credit due to payment of a Payday loan and a Verizon bill. The court is not persuaded that the defendant is entitled to any credit due to these obligations which were apparently his legal obligation to pay. The defendant is entitled to a credit of $1,800 for payments made to the plaintiff between 4/19/14 and 7/17/14.
The parties have no significant assets other than the defendant's pension with the State of Connecticut. The family home was lost to a foreclosure. There are claims by the defendant regarding personal property. The plaintiff testified that she does not have this property. There is significant debt.
The court has considered all of the statutory factors enumerated in Connecticut General Statutes section 46b-81 and 46b-82 in making the order set forth below. " A fundamental principle in dissolution actions is that a trial court may exercise broad discretion in awarding alimony and dividing property as long as it considers all relevant statutory criteria." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Keenan v. Casillo, 149 Conn.App. 642, 663, 89 A.3d 912, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 910, 93 A.3d 594 (2014). " The distribution of assets in a dissolution action is governed by . . . § 46b-81, which provides in pertinent part that a trial court may assign to either the husband or the wife all or any part of the estate of the other . . . In fixing the nature and value of the property, if any, to be assigned, the court, after hearing the witnesses, if any, of each party . . . shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the . . . dissolution of the marriage . . . the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 392-93, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). In particular the court is concerned about the plaintiff's prospect for employability. Since 2012 she has not been employed on a regular basis. The court, based upon the testimony, is unable to impute an earning capacity to her at the present time or since the date of judgment. In addition the defendant clearly has the greater ability to acquire future assets and will continue to accrue pension benefits so long as he remains in his current employment. The defendant testified that he is not concerned about a loss of employment due to the economic situation currently affecting the State of Connecticut due to his seniority.
ORDERS
Based on the foregoing the court orders the following:
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $372 per week as child support in accordance with the child support guidelines filed by the defendant. This amount shall be retroactive to the date of judgment. The child support shall be reduced to $251 per week on August 27, 2017 when the oldest child turns 18 years old, provided he has graduated from high school and is not still a full-time high school student.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $500 per week as alimony for a period terminating upon the plaintiff's 62nd birthday. The alimony shall earlier terminate upon the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage. The alimony is subject to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-86(b). This amount shall be retroactive to the date of judgment.
3. The defendant shall be entitled to accredit on his payments to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,800 for payments made by him between April 19, 2014 and July 17, 2014.
4. Any overpayments or underpayments or credits resulting from these orders shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week.
5. The child support and alimony orders shall be subject to an immediate wage withholding.
6. The parties shall each be entitled to claim one child as dependent for state and federal tax purposes. When there is only one eligible child the parties shall alternate years with the defendant going first. The defendant must be current in his entire child support obligation by December 31st of each year to claim the child as a dependent.
7. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his State of Connecticut pension, valued as of the date of judgment, to the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the entry of a Domestic Relation Order if necessary.
8. Each party shall be responsible for their own health insurance. The defendant shall provide health insurance for the children as made available to him by his employer or other group plan, for so long as the children may be eligible. The provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-84(e) shall apply.
9. Unreimbursed and uninsured medical, dental prescription, optical, orthodontic, psychiatric, psychological and/or counseling expenses for the minor children as well as work-related day care shall be paid 50% by the defendant and 50% by the plaintiff.
10. Each party shall retain the personal property currently in their possession, including automobiles, without any claim from the other.
11. Each party shall be responsible for the debts listed on their respective financial affidavits and hold the other harmless therefrom.
12. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorney fees.
13. Each party shall retain their own bank accounts and retirement accounts except as set forth herein.
14. The court will not retain jurisdiction over educational support orders pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b-56c since there was no evidence to make the necessary findings.
15. The defendant shall maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy during his child support or alimony obligation naming the plaintiff as irrevocable beneficiary thereon.