Opinion
KNOFA144123960S
06-08-2016
Gwendolyn White v. Howard White
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Leo V. Diana, J.
This action seeks the dissolution of the parties' six-year marriage. The action was commenced by a complaint filed with this court on May 23, 2014 with a return date of June 10, 2014. The parties appeared in court at trial on March 22, May 9 and 23, 2016 with counsel. The court considered the testimony of witnesses, the evidence, the financial affidavits of the parties and the provisions of General Statutes § § 46b-81 and 46b-82.
As financial matters were in dispute in this contested dissolution trial, the court ordered the unsealing of the financial affidavits pursuant to Practice Book § 25-59A.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The court makes the following findings of fact. All factual findings made herein have been made by a fair preponderance of evidence unless otherwise set forth herein.
The parties were married in New London, Connecticut. The complaint was orally amended by agreement to correct the date of the marriage to January 15, 2010. They separated in May 2014.
This was the second marriage between these parties to each other, they were first married on October 5, 1991 and divorced on May 18, 2006 in an action filed by Mr. White. That divorce proceeded unopposed as Ms. White was incarcerated and did not appear as a party in the proceedings. The parties have a son, Devon Tate, who is now twenty-six years of age.
The plaintiff is sixty years old, has received SSD benefits and is currently paid $766.00 net per month for a back injury. She has struggled with an addiction to both crack cocaine and alcohol, she has received various treatments both inpatient and outpatient over the years as well as various arrests having been incarcerated more than once. Her health is poor, she is on various medications for her back, high blood pressure along with mental health issues. The plaintiff attended school until the 11th grade but did not complete her high school curriculum. She admits to actively drinking and testified that she does not use crack cocaine yet was not credible as to the last time she used, providing the court with different answers when asked.
The plaintiff acknowledges that her drinking contributed to the cause of the breakdown of this marriage along with her husband's relationship with her friend, Terry. The court finds the testimony of the plaintiff to be somewhat credible, however, she was unable to answer certain questions due to a lack of memory.
The defendant is sixty-four years old, completed two years of college, is in good health and up until November 2015 worked two jobs to provide for this family. He is a full-time employee working in housekeeping at L& M Hospital earning $51, 220.00 gross per year and $709.28 net per week working second shift (4:00 p.m. - 12:30 a.m.). For over twenty years he also worked a part-time job cleaning at night (until 4:00 a.m.) at his friend's company, Coastal Building Services. He now helps take care of his five-year-old grandson in the morning and no longer works a second job.
The defendant does not own an automobile but has had unlimited access to one owned by his friend, Mr. Waldron. The defendant has been paying approximately $1, 600.00 per month under a Pendente Lite Agreement dated July 10, 2014 for the plaintiff's living expenses. These obligations are currently past due as the defendant does not have the income from his second job as he did when the agreement was approved by the court. The parties have no assets to divide, only debt and specifically taxes due to the state and federal government. The income for this second job was not declared causing a tax liability ($13, 000.00) to the IRS and another with the Department of Revenue Services that has yet to be determined. The defendant has negotiated a payment plan to the IRS of $300.00 per month and expects to do the same with the State. The defendant lives with his sister, Verna, as he cannot afford a rental, he pays $100.00 per week for room and board.
The defendant attributes the breakdown of the marriage to the plaintiff's addiction issues, her weekly intoxication and, the final straw, her withdrawing funds from an HSA (health savings account) that resulted in a tax liability as the money was not used for medical purposes. The court finds the testimony of the defendant to be credible.
The parties kept in touch after the divorce (2006) when the plaintiff moved to North Carolina to live with her parents. She has a son from a prior relationship who the defendant adopted and raised. She asked to return to Connecticut and the defendant agreed, they both wanted things to work out for their sake and that of the children. After a few years they remarried based upon the hope of change and promises. That dream soon vanished as the plaintiff was arrested for DUI twice between 2010 and 2011. She worked on and off with the defendant at his second job but that also ended. The plaintiff has been addicted to crack cocaine since 1986 when she was in her 20s, this thirty-year-plus habit along with alcohol abuse has caused problems including memory loss and incarceration. In 2010 soon after the marriage, the defendant knew this marriage was a mistake when he found a crack pipe in the residence under the sofa, she was drunk 4-5 times a week and was verbally abusive to him. Nothing had changed with the plaintiff and her behavior was worse than before. The plaintiff's excessive use of alcohol led to an incident on May 13, 2014 when the defendant returned home from work at 3:00 a.m. to find his wife and her two friends severely intoxicated, the plaintiff was passed out in the bedroom. While the defendant was in the bedroom with his wife, Terry (one of the two friends referred to above) walked into the bedroom naked, he escorted her out of the bedroom and left the residence. Thereafter, the other friend (Jackie) and her daughter came to the defendant's residence to tell the plaintiff about the relationship between Terry and the defendant, he told them not to enter his house, they did not comply with his request and he was arrested after possessing a baseball bat and breaking property inside the residence. The defendant left the residence and has never returned.
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff submitted proposed orders to the court as required seeking in part alimony, health insurance and attorneys fees. The defendant failed to submit written proposed orders yet outlined his position as elicited through testimony.
Unfortunately this union had little chance of success because the plaintiff's addiction to drugs and alcohol is too strong, with her not working and the defendant working two jobs little time was available to jointly overcome these demons and desires despite the adverse consequences. The duration of this marriage is six (6) years, significant payments have been made by the defendant to the plaintiff by agreement with after tax dollars and no benefit of an alimony deduction for almost two years. The defendant has requested to stop any further payments to the defendant as he believes he has overpaid her for the last two years. The plaintiff appears to consider this entire relationship as one marriage. The gap between the parties' respective claims is immense.
The trial court has the best opportunity to observe the parties, pass on the credibility of witnesses, and weigh and interpret the evidence . . . Collucci v. Collucci, 33 Conn.App. 536, 540, 636 A.2d 1364 (1994). The plaintiff has received SSD since 2009, her health is poor, she takes medication and she is also an addict who denies using crack cocaine since 2011 and admits to continuing to use alcohol in excess. Her needs are great and her ability is limited. The defendant ignored the shortcomings of the plaintiff by working second and third shift, he had enough of her lifestyle and sought affection elsewhere.
The plaintiff's dependence and behavior has significantly contributed to the breakdown of this marriage. The defendant is a hard working individual who worked up to 60 hours a week for twenty years to provide for the family, he has paid the plaintiff's living expenses for almost two years to allow the plaintiff to maintain her living expenses. The defendant's extramarital relationship is the indirect result of the plaintiff's conduct. However, this dalliance did also contribute to a lesser degree to the breakdown of the marriage.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
The Court makes the following additional findings:
1. The court has jurisdiction in this matter which has been pending for more than ninety days.
2. The plaintiff has lived in the State of Connecticut for more than one year prior to the commencement of this action.
3. The allegations in the complaint have been proven and are found to be true.
4. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably.
5. The State of Connecticut has not contributed to the support of the parties.
6. The marriage is hereby dissolved, the parties are declared to be single and unmarried.
ORDERS
The court enters the following orders:
1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff periodic alimony under the same terms as stated in the July 10, 2014 order through June 30, 2016, thereafter the payments shall be made in the amount of $200.00 per week based upon the defendant's current salary of $51, 220.00 per year ($709.28 net per week) and the plaintiff's SSD income of $766.00 net per month. Said payments shall automatically terminate upon the death of either party, the remarriage of the plaintiff or the defendant's sixty-seventh birth date. Said orders are nonmodifiable as to term and modifiable as to amount.
2. No alimony shall be awarded to the defendant.
3. The parties shall be responsible for their own health insurance.
4. The parties shall each retain any and all assets in their possession.
5. The defendant shall be solely responsible for the state and federal tax liability from 2006 to present regarding failure to pay taxes on his income.
6. The parties shall be solely responsible for the debt listed on their respective financial affidavits unless otherwise stated herein.
7. The defendant shall name the plaintiff as the beneficiary of his life insurance in the amount of $30, 000.00, said amount may decrease annually by $10, 000.00 for as long as an alimony order remains. Verification shall be provided to the plaintiff upon request.
8. The parties shall each be solely responsible for their own counsel fees.
9. The parties shall indemnify and hold each other harmless with respect to any debt, or portion thereof ordered to be paid by such party, and any deficiency found by reason of that party's income or deductions.
Unless otherwise specifically set forth herein, these orders are effective immediately.