Opinion
FA134025898S
09-01-2016
Jessica Fieber v. William D. Fieber
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Michael E. Shay, Judge
The plaintiff wife (" wife"), whose birth name was Jessica Weisner, and the defendant husband (" husband") were married in Stamford, Connecticut on December 26, 1987. It is a second marriage for the wife and a first marriage for the husband. They are the parents of two children, Alexandra and Christopher, both of whom have reached their majority, and neither of whom is under the age of 23. No other children have been born to the wife issue of the marriage. Neither the state, nor any subdivision thereof, nor any town has provided assistance to either party during the marriage. The parties have been living separate and apart since October 2013, when the wife moved out of the then marital residence at 633 Ponus Ridge Road, New Canaan, shortly after the service of the Complaint in this action. She currently leases a home on Maple Street in New Canaan, however, she is looking for another rental in the area, and to eventually buy a home. Later on, the husband also left the then family home on Ponus Ridge Road and moved into another property at 202 Parish Road, New Canaan, where he currently lives. Title to this home is held in the name of New Canaan CHRAL, LLC, in which the husband, wife and both children all presently share unequal interests.
The husband is 56 years old and enjoys good health, and he is a graduate of Duke University. He is a successful real estate developer and builder, working in a family business. According to his financial affidavit, the husband has a net income of $87,390.86 per month, based upon a gross income from all sources, including interest and dividends, in excess of $1,500,000.00 per year.
The wife is 57 years old, and she is in generally good health. However, she told the court that she has high blood pressure and high cholesterol, for which she takes medication to control, as well as osteoarthritis, which causes her some discomfort in her back. She treats with a chiropractor for the latter condition. The wife obtained a bachelor's degree in Education from Boston University, as well as a Masters in Counseling from Fordham University. At the time of the marriage, the wife was finishing up her Masters and volunteering at the Rape Crisis Center in Stamford. Later on, she was employed briefly at NutraSystems and then in the Department of Social Services in the Town of Greenwich, where she worked with pregnant teens and young mothers. The parties decided to start a family, and she has not been gainfully employed for more than 25 years.
During the course of the marriage, the wife was the beneficiary of a substantial inheritance from her father, Sidney Weisner, and a more modest one from her mother, Colleen Farrell. (Exhibits #2 and #35.) For instance, she has received scheduled distributions from her father's estate every five years starting at age 30 and ending at age 50. In addition, she receives regular income during her life from a testamentary trust established by her father. An election was made under New York law in 2005 to treat the trust as a unitrust. As such, the wife is entitled to receive payments equal to 4% of a rolling three-year average of the trust corpus payable in monthly installments for the rest of her life. At present, this amounts to more than $50,000.00 per month, but this sum will diminish over time due to the inevitable erosion of the principal. (Exhibit #3.) The wife told the court that she would like to rescind the unitrust election so as to ultimately benefit her children. However, she has taken no affirmative steps to do so, nor has she set aside any monies for the children from her income during the marriage. (Exhibits #143 and #189.) According to the husband's expert, the present value of her right to receive this stream of income is $9,826,000.00. (Exhibit #183.) Her financial affidavit shows that she has a net income of $37,334.00 per month, based upon gross income from all sources amounting to nearly $650,000.00 per year.
One complicating factor, among several in this case, is the fact that Christopher, now age 23, was born with certain special needs that make life a challenge for himself and his parents, particularly the wife, who has borne the brunt of the caregiving responsibilities since birth, both physically and emotionally, and, in part, financially as well. In fact, she has expended nearly $200,000.00. (Exhibit #150.) Presently, both parents are co-guardians of their son, except as to medical decisions, which are the province of the wife. In fact, throughout the marriage, the wife has blended the roles of a loving parent and a fierce and knowledgeable advocate for the welfare of their son. A defect in Christopher's mitochondrial DNA has placed him on the autism spectrum and has left him developmentally limited, coupled with severe hearing loss. According to the wife, Christopher will never be able to live totally on his own without some form of supervision and care. That is not to say that the husband has played no role in his son's life. On the contrary; he has contributed financially, participated with his son in sports like baseball and skiing, as well as attendance at some medical procedures and meetings with school officials to help craft an IEP. Fortunately for their son, and for the daughter as well, the husband has set aside substantial monies in trust for their benefit, and they are financially well provided for in the long run. However, as important and laudable as these contributions are, nevertheless, they do not come close to the wife's commitment.
The fact remains, that, over time, the lion's share of the responsibility for Christopher's care has been assumed by the wife alone, in part because of the division of labor within the family, but in large measure as a result of her willingness to accept the full responsibility. She told the court that her efforts have been " demanding, but not a burden." Since reaching adulthood, the son had been living in a group home in Massachusetts, but had to leave this past April as it was not working out. Christopher is currently living in a home in Marston Mills, Massachusetts, which was purchased by the wife in June 2015 during the pendency of this case, using $1,600,000.00 of her own funds, so that she could be near him. The husband asserts that this is a violation of the automatic orders. The wife has arranged for so-called " dayhab" in her home. In a sad irony, her focus on her children, particularly Christopher, has in many respects left the husband as the " odd man out, " and undoubtedly has placed strains on the marriage.
The parties' finances are a second complicating factor. The wife testified that she brought approximately $200,000.00 to the marriage from the proceeds from the sale of a home in England, as a result of the termination of her first marriage. According to the wife, the husband brought $500,000.00 to the union, a fact also confirmed by his testimony. In addition, she told the court that during the marriage, she loaned money " a few times" to Fieber businesses. (TR May 25, 2016 @94 and 97.) (Exhibit #18.) With certain exceptions, the parties have for the most part kept their finances separated. During the marriage, the husband's income was primarily used for living expenses, and hers was spent on " other things, " for instance, for the children. They have, until prior to their separation, filed joint income tax returns throughout the marriage, and the husband paid the taxes, including those taxes attributable to the wife's income. The wife has kept her inheritances separate from the family pot, with the acquiescence of the husband, who has offered investment advice from time to time. On the family side, although many assets are in joint names, the fact is that the husband has maintained virtually absolute control over them. She told the court that she did not have access to a joint checking account until late in the marriage. The husband has, in turn, made the wife the " odd man out" in favor of his birth family, particularly his brother James. That is not to say that she has made no financial contribution to the marital estate. On the contrary, in addition to what she brought to the marriage, she has made substantial contributions from time to time, the latest being her payment of $300,000.00 toward the purchase of the building lot at 202 Parish Road, New Canaan. However, the husband's unwillingness to share financial decisions regarding the marital estate has left the wife feeling that she was not an equal partner.
The parties have a dispute regarding the division of personal property, particularly the furnishings from the Parish Road home. At the time that the wife left the marital residence at Ponus Ridge on October 11, 2013 (TR May 25, 2016 @125), she took furnishings from the Parish Road home in order to furnish her rental. (Exhibits #28, 31, and 36.) An ancillary problem is the fact that the Parish Road house was the " dream house" they had always talked about but had deferred constructing. She even chose the lot and contributed $300,000.00 of her funds toward the lot purchase. (TR May 25, 2016 @113.) The wife told the court that the original plan had been to build that home at Ponus Ridge, and they even had an architect draw up plans. However, in the end, they were not used in 1992, as the husband built what she referred to as a " builder's colonial." And now, the dream house is occupied by the husband and his significant other, after the husband had insisted that neither party should move in until the divorce was finalized. (Exhibits #22, #23, and #26.)
Yet another complicating factor is the sheer breadth and scope of the Fieber Family business ventures, in which the husband has an interest, some thirty-eight in all (including New Canaan CHRAL, LLC). It can best be described as an interlocking, multi-generational, familial web of real estate ventures. The family is so protective of these financial arrangements that William Fieber and his three siblings have all entered into an agreement (Exhibit #122) dated August 10, 2008, whereby each has a right of first refusal should one propose a sale of their interest in any family venture. The court heard the testimony of both William Fieber and his brother James, who manages the enterprises, as well as two experts (one for the husband and another for the wife) who have filed written reports. The discovery process was unduly protracted, and the wife had considerable difficulty extracting pertinent information. It would be a fair assessment that the valuation of some assets presented a moving target. The timing of loans and distributions is largely within the control of the Fieber brothers and can result in large fluctuations of assets and income at any given time. A case in point is a Statement of Financial Condition of William Fieber (Exhibit #173) as of April 30, 2012, which shows a net worth of more than $62,000,000.00 as compared with a current net worth of approximately one-half that sum. The various interfamilial business dealings through loans, investments, and tax-free exchanges were and are anything but transparent. Most of the business decisions are made by the husband's older brother James, and the husband has conveniently used that fact as an " out" regarding his lack of detailed knowledge about the workings of the various entities. " Sign here, " says James, and William signs without a pause or question. What becomes crystal clear is the fact that much of the accumulated wealth has come down from the previous generation, and it is the intention of this generation to pass it along more or less intact, along with accumulated gains, to the " lineal descendants" of Norman and Sylvia Fieber. (Exhibit #122.) To that end, the family draws a veil around their activities, the piercing of which they make exceedingly difficult. In spite of all that, the court found that the wife's expert was credible.
As to the cause of the breakdown, the wife described the husband as " selfish and self-absorbed, " and unwilling to support her emotionally. (TR May 25, 2016 @165-66) She described him as " uncommunicative, " that he was " dismissive" of her, and that he " failed to listen." For instance, although she had an admittedly difficult relationship with her mother, the husband refused to talk with her about her feelings, particularly after her mother died. The " problem grew worse over time, " and, as a result, she " lost all trust" in him. She told the court that her husband told her that she was " too involved" with their son and not engaged in " social activities with him." The wife told the court that the husband liked to party, including the use of alcohol and banned substances. He would frequently party with friends, people whom he knew that the wife disliked or was uncomfortable around, many times coming home late or not at all. While the family took frequent trips together, the husband often travelled alone. She said that he was a " risk taker" both recreationally and in business. He has also carried on an affair. The wife testified that the final blow to the marriage came on May 10, 2012, after the husband rear-ended another vehicle after partying, fled the scene of the accident, and left her, who was not present, to be later arrested. (Exhibits #10, #11, and #127) She told the court that the incident was the " turning point in the marriage, " and that it was the " worst thing that ever happened to her." (TR May 25, 2016 @64-65.)
For his part, the husband told the court that his wife was hypercritical of him, and that he was unable to live up to her expectations. He also continued to profess his love for his wife, yet he persists in a relationship with another woman. It is clear to the court that he quite simply wants to have it both ways. He has selfishly demonstrated no interest in modifying his behavior or giving up any of his preferred activities. For a " risk taker" in his business and recreational activities, it is a sad irony of this case that he has been unable or unwilling to take the emotional risk, that gift of self so necessary to build a lasting marriage. In short, he had no real " skin" in that game.
The parties separated briefly in 1996, and at that time, tried therapy and counseling. Things got better for a while, and then worse. For her part, the wife told the court that she does not believe that she shares any blame for the breakdown of the marriage. While the court finds that each party has contributed to the breakdown in some fashion, the largest share of fault must lie with the husband.
The matter was tried over the course of 16 days, including final argument. The court permitted counsel for the wife to file an Affidavit of Fees within one week thereafter, and allowed counsel for the husband a further week to review and to challenge the reasonableness of same. Accordingly, the evidence closed on August 18.
AS TO PENDENTE LITE MOTIONS
FINDINGS
1. That the issue of contempt pendente lite was addressed in a separate and distinct phase of the hearing, and under the holdings in Evans v. Taylor, 67 Conn.App. 108, 786 A.2d 525 (2001) and Milbauer v. Milbauer, 54 Conn.App. 304, 733 A.2d 907 (1999).
2. That a finding of contempt must be based upon a willful failure to comply with a clear and unequivocal order of the court. Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713, 718, 784 A.2d 890 (2001); that " a judgment of contempt cannot be based on representations of counsel in a motion, but must be supported by evidence produced in court at a proper hearing." Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn.App. 50, 60, 732 A.2d 808 (1999); that " a finding of indirect civil contempt must be established by sufficient proof that is premised on competent evidence presented to the trial court and based on sworn testimony." Dickinson v. Dickinson, 143 Conn.App. 184, 190, 68 A.3d 182 (2013); and that indirect civil contempt " should be proven by clear and convincing evidence." Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300, 319, 105 A.3d 887 (2015).
3. That on or about June 9, 2015, the wife purchased a home at 180 Baxter's Neck Rd., Marston Mills, Massachusetts; that said purchase occurred after the filing of the Complaint herein; that the funds utilized by the wife were a distribution from a trust established for her benefit by her late father; that at the time of said purchase, the son Christopher, now an adult, was living in a group home nearby; that Christopher has ongoing special needs; that since Christopher's birth, the wife has been the principal caregiver and advocate for Christopher; that the purpose of said purchase was to reside closer to Christopher and not to waste or remove marital assets from consideration by the court; that Christopher is no longer able to reside in the group home; that he resides in the wife's home in Marston Mills; that the wife has made live-in arrangements for Christopher's continued supervision there; and that, " considering the circumstances surrounding the [alleged] violation, " the actions of the wife do not amount to willful contempt under the Automatic Orders. Dickinson v. Dickinson, 143 Conn.App. 184, 68 A.3d 182 (2013).
4. That on or about August 28, 2014, the wife loaned to her adult daughter, Alexandra, the sum of $75,000.00 (Exhibit #32); that said daughter is currently enrolled in graduate school at Columbia University; that said funds were intended for the purpose of paying tuition and other living expenses; that the husband, and his brother James, who exercise control over his daughter's trust, twice refused her request for trust funds to help with her graduate school in order to " teach her a life lesson; " that the timing and issuance of the loan were not intended to hide assets, defraud the husband, or otherwise defeat the ability of the court to equitably divide the marital estate; and that, under all the circumstances, the actions of the wife do not amount to willful contempt under the Automatic Orders.
5. That on or about October 11, 2013, the wife moved out of the family home at 633 Ponus Ridge Road, New Canaan, Connecticut (TR May 25, 2016 @125); that at or about that time, she removed certain furniture and home furnishings from the residence at 202 Parish Road, New Canaan, Connecticut, as set forth on a list (Exhibits #28, #31, and 36); that in addition, the wife removed certain items that were heirlooms or gifts from her family or otherwise had sentimental value (TR May 25, 2016 @152-53); that, except for said other items, title to said property stands in the name of New Canaan CHRAL, LLC, in which both parties and their children share an interest; that the wife has what amounts to a 12.76% interest in said entity (Exhibit #34); that the respective interests of the husband and wife are marital property; that the husband testified that he replaced some of the furnishings in the name of New Canaan CHRAL, LLC; that the furniture and the furnishings, as such, are not marital property; and that, under all the circumstances, the actions of the wife do not amount to willful contempt under the Automatic Orders.
6. That on or about October 2013, the wife moved out of the marital home at 633 Ponus Ridge Road, New Canaan, Connecticut; that at or about that time, she removed certain items of furniture from the premises at 202 Parish Road, New Canaan, in order to furnish her rental premises at Maple Street, New Canaan; that on or after the filing of the Complaint, the husband left the marital home at 633 Ponus Ridge Road and moved into 202 Parish Road; that on or after the filing of the Complaint, the husband removed certain items from the marital residence at 633 Ponus Ridge Road in order to furnish the premises at 202 Parish Road (TR May 25, 2016 @155-56); that the husband's actions were not intended to hide assets, defraud the wife, or otherwise defeat the ability of the court to equitably divide the marital estate; and that, under all the circumstances, the actions of the husband were reasonable and do not amount to willful contempt under the Automatic Orders.
ORDERS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. That the husband's Motion for Contempt (#214.00) dated June 30, 2015, is HEREBY DENIED.
2. That the husband's Motion for Contempt (#106007E; 00) dated December 23, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED.
3. That the wife's Motion for Contempt (#126.00) dated July 17, 2014, is HEREBY DENIED.
AS TO THE TRIAL
FINDINGS
The Court, having heard the testimony of both parties and their witnesses, and having considered the evidence presented at hearing, as well as the factors enumerated in General Statutes § 46b-40, 46b-51, 46b-62, 46b-63, 46b-81, and 46b-82, hereby makes the following findings:
1. That it has jurisdiction.
2. That the allegations of the First Count of the Amended Complaint are proven and true.
On May 12, 2015, the court granted the plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint, Pendente Lite (#278.00) dated April 28, 2015, in order to add two additional counts alleging fraudulent conveyance and dissipation of assets, all stemming from the defendant's transfer of substantial assets to a Nevada spendthrift trust in December 2012, prior to the filing of the original Complaint. At the time of trial, the defendant had decanted the assets from the Nevada trust and returned them to the jurisdiction of this court, and he took steps to dissolve the trust. Under the circumstances, the court took evidence on the First Count, and having no credible evidence presented to it under the Second and Third Counts, treats those claims as waived, and judgment may enter in favor of the defendant on both counts.
3. That the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably, and that ample evidence exists that while the husband is primarily at fault, both parties have contributed in some fashion to said breakdown.
4. Two children have been born to the wife since the date of the marriage, both of whom have reached their majority, neither of whom is under the age of 23 years, and that the wife is not currently pregnant.
5. That during the marriage, neither party has received any aid or assistance from the State of Connecticut or any town or political subdivision thereof.
6. That " the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are within the sole province of the trial court." Stearns v. Stearns, 4 Conn.App. 323, 327, 494 A.2d 595 (1985).
7. That the purpose of alimony is to meet a spouse's continuing duty to support that arises out of the marital relationship. Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232, 234, 449 A.2d 151 (1982); that in making an award of alimony, the court must consider the factors enumerated in General Statutes § 46b-82, but need not give equal weight to any or all of them. Dumbauld v. Dumbauld, 163 Conn.App. 517, 524-25, 136 A.3d 669 (2016); that " alimony is not designed to punish, but to ensure that the former spouse receives adequate support." Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348, 361, 880 A.2d 872 (2005); that " alimony represents the court's finding, measured in dollars, of the financial needs of the receiving spouse at the time of the dissolution." Lynch v. Lynch, 153 Conn.App. 208, 227, 100 A.3d 968 (2014).
8. That each party has sufficient liquid assets; that while the discovery process was long and sometimes contentious, there was no evidence of " egregious discovery misconduct" that would warrant the application of an exception to the " American Rule" regarding the payment of attorneys fees. Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651, 657, 51 A.3d 941 (2012); and that it is equitable and appropriate that each party should be responsible for their respective attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. Maguire v. Maguire, 222 Conn. 32, 608 A.2d 79 (1992).
9. That throughout the marriage, until their separation, both parties each made significant contributions to the acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of the family assets, including the real estate; that during the course of the marriage, both parties have acquired or otherwise benefitted from assets gifted or transferred to them from family, including by will, trust, gift, or exchange; and that as to said assets, their respective spouses have contributed in a substantial fashion to the acquisition, preservation, or maintenance thereof in that (a) the husband has paid the entire tax obligation on the joint state and federal income tax returns, which included income received by the wife on her investments and receipts from the trust established by her father, and (b) the wife's significant contributions, both physical and financial, to the care and upbringing of the children, in particular her constant and continuous efforts to meet Christopher's special needs throughout the marriage, has allowed the husband to concentrate on his numerous business ventures without a major distraction therefrom, earn income, and to accumulate assets throughout the marriage.
10. That both parties derive their principal income from investments or other passive sources; that the wife is the beneficiary of a Trust established under the Will of her late father, Sidney Weisner; that the wife is entitled to receive therefrom monthly income distributions for life; that it is appropriate to consider the present value of the wife's right to receive income therefrom for life; that such a finding is not an impermissible " double dip." Utz v. Utz, 112 Conn.App. 631, 639-40, 963 A.2d 1049 (2009); and that the evidence (Exhibit #183) supports a finding that the present value of said right to receive income is $9,826,000.00.
11. That the evidence supports a finding that the wife may elect to revoke the unitrust election for the Trust established under the Will of Sidney Weisner; that she has taken no steps to date to do so; that to date she has not set aside any substantial funds for the benefit of either child of the marriage in trust or otherwise; that any future changes to the Trust would be speculative at this time; and that the court must equitably divide the marital estate at the time of the decree dissolving the marriage. General Statutes § 46b-81.
12. That the value of the real property known as 202 Parish Road, New Canaan, Connecticut is $6,400,000.00 (Exhibit #167); that title to said property is held in the name of New Canaan CHRAL, LLC; that as of the date of trial, the husband had a 69.06% interest therein and the wife had a 12.76% interest therein; that under all the circumstances, it is equitable and appropriate that the wife surrender her interest therein in return for a cash payment of $1,600,000.00 representing 25% of the appraised value set forth above; and that thereafter the husband should retain the resulting 81.82% interest therein free and clear of any claims by the wife.
The court has not included a value for the furnishings at 202 Parish Road, New Canaan, Connecticut. These items are an asset of the entity New Canaan CHRAL, LLC. No credible evidence of present value was presented to the court, other than the purchase price of certain items more than two and one-half years prior to trial.
13. That the evidence supports a finding that the combined value of the husband's business assets otherwise known as the " Fieber Family Businesses, " is $20,436,000.00, all as more specifically set forth in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
ORDERS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. The marriage of the parties is hereby dissolved, and they are each hereby declared to be single and unmarried.
2. No alimony is awarded to either party.
3. The husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $3,750,000.00 as and for a lump sum property division as follows: Within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of this Memorandum of Decision the sum of $750,000.00; and annually thereafter in four equal installments of $750,000.00, commencing on January 1, 2018, until said lump sum is paid in full. In the event that the husband shall fail to pay any installment on time, commencing with the day following the due date, said installment shall bear simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum until paid in full.
4. The proceeds from the sale of the marital home at 633 Ponus Ridge Road currently held in escrow at Zeldes, Needle & Cooper, P.C. shall be divided 40% to the husband and 60% to the wife.
5. The net proceeds from the UBS settlement currently held in escrow, after deduction for expenses, shall be divided 40% to the husband and 60% to the wife.
6. The wife shall retain her interest in the real property known as 180 Baxter's Neck Road, Marston Mills, Massachusetts, free and clear of any claims by the husband.
7. Within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this Memorandum of Decision, the husband shall pay to the wife in cash the sum of $1,600,000.00, without interest, at which time the wife shall surrender her interest in New Canaan CHRAL, LLC. The husband shall be entitled to retain his resulting interest in the New Canaan CHRAL, LLC free and clear of any claims by the wife.
8. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the husband shall be entitled to retain his interest in the following entities, known collectively as " Fieber Family Businesses, " free and clear of any claims by the wife, to wit: See Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
9. The wife shall be entitled to retain her interest as beneficiary in and the right to the receipt of income from the Trust under the Will of her father Sidney Weisner, free and clear of any claims by the husband.
10. Within sixty (60) days from the date of this Memorandum of Decision, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $80,000.00 as and for her interest (4.7619%) in the entity known as Kathy Kimmel Associates, LLC, and simultaneous therewith, the wife shall transfer her interest in said entity to the husband.
11. Personal property shall be divided as follows:
A. Each party shall be entitled to retain the home furniture and furnishings, including artwork, family heirlooms, and antiques, currently in their possession, including the real property at Marston Mills or in separate storage, free and clear of any claims by the other. The foregoing notwithstanding, it is further the intention of the court that any inherited and/or heirloom property of either party not currently in their possession, wherever located, shall belong to that party, and each party shall cooperate with the other to ensure the return such items to the other party. The court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this provision.
B. Each party shall be entitled to keep the automobile which they are currently driving, subject to any existing liens, loans, or leases, free and clear of any claims by the other, and each party shall cooperate with the other regarding the execution of any documentation necessary to transfer and/or register same. Specifically, the husband shall be entitled to retain the 2006 Range Rover.
C. Except as otherwise set forth herein, each party shall be entitled to keep their respective savings, checking, and money market accounts free and clear of any claims by the other, to wit:
1. The wife shall retain her Chase Private Client Checking Account (xxx6260), Chase Private Client Savings Account (xxx8810), and Bank of America Checking Account (xxx7068).
2. The husband shall retain his Citibank Citigold Account (xxx0104);
Patriot National Bank HAS Checking Account (xxx0405); Bankwell Savings
Account (xxx2149); and Bankwell Checking Accounts (xxx7986) [joint with daughter] and (xxx6211).
D. Except as otherwise set forth herein, each party shall be entitled to keep their respective investment and brokerage accounts free and clear of any claims by the other, to wit:
1. The wife shall retain her interest in National Securities Account (xxx5203), and Wells Fargo Brokerage Accounts (xxx1334), (xxx7012), (xxx7755), and (xxx9220).
2. The husband shall retain his interest in Merrill Lynch Accounts (xxx5869), (xxx3382), (xxx1445), (xxx2466), (xxx1991), and (xxx7793); J. P. Morgan (xxx2970); Wells Fargo (xxx5208); and Stifel Prestige (xxx9898) free and clear of any claims by the wife.
E. The husband shall be entitled to retain the following personal property free and clear of any claims by the wife:
1. His clothing and personal effects, including watches, rings, and other jewelry.
2. The remaining balance in the William D. Fieber Spendthrift Trust (" Nevada Trust") following the decanting of the assets therein.
3. The husband shall retain the promissory note from Heather Ridge to himself dated October 18, 2013, in the amount of $675,000.00, free and clear of any claims by the wife.
F. The wife shall be entitled to retain the following personal property free and clear of any claims by the husband:
1. Her clothing and personal effects, including watches, rings, and other jewelry.
2. Her interest (4.156%) in the entity known as Tactical Toe, LLC.
3. Loan to Alexandra Fieber in the amount of $75,000.00.
4. Her remaining interest in the Estate of Camille Farrell.
5. Her frequent flyer miles as shown on her financial affidavit.
12. The retirement assets of the parties shall be divided as follows:
A. The husband shall retain his interest in the Merrill Lynch Individual Retirement Account (#XXX9956) free and clear of any claims by the wife.
B. The wife shall retain her interest in the National Securities Individual Retirement Account (#XXX5208) free and clear of any claims by the husband.
C. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the husband shall transfer to the wife, by way of a tax-free spousal transfer, one-half of the balance of the Merrill Lynch SEP Individual Retirement Account (#XXX1407) as of the date of this Memorandum of Decision to such account or accounts as the wife may direct.
13. The husband shall promptly notify his employer as to the change of marital status and shall cooperate with the wife in obtaining a continuation of the existing health insurance coverage through United Health Care, as provided by state and federal law. The wife shall be responsible for the payment of any premiums due for such coverage.
14. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the parties shall each be responsible for the debts as shown on their respective financial affidavits, and they shall indemnify and hold each other harmless from any further liability thereon.
15. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorneys fees and costs incurred in this matter.
16. There having been a contested hearing at which the financial orders were in dispute, the financial affidavits of the parties are hereby unsealed per P.B. § 25-59A(h).
SCHEDULE A
" Fieber Family Businesses"
William Fieber-Investments
Fiebro Management High Ridge, LLC
$41,000.00
SP Chicago West Roosevelt, LLC
793, 000.00
SP Corinth, LLC
2, 349, 000.00
Branson Land, LLC
.00
Branson Airport, LLC
.00
Branson Funding, LLC
.00
Fiebro Acquisition Company, LLC (Armour Ridge)
618, 000.00
Special Properties XV, LLC
.00
78 Cranberry Road, LLC
2, 248, 000.00
SP II, LLC
270, 000.00
SP Durham, LLC
1, 838, 000.00
SP Augusta, LLC
438, 000.00
SP Novi, LLC
1, 140, 000.00
Osborne Lane Associates, LLC
20, 000.00
D-1 Properties, LLC
21, 000.00
Fieber Tree Tops Group, LLC
5, 000.00
Cambridge-Hanover Value Added Fund II, LLC
71, 000.00
Kobe Partners, LLC
272, 000.00
SP II Commercial, LLC
345, 000.00
Sonor Realty, LLC (1201 High Ridge)
1, 926, 000.00
1004 Associates, LLC
1, 128, 000.00
Kathy Kimmel Associates, LLC
75, 000.00
SP XII, LLC
1, 562, 000.00
Danbury Investment Company, LLC
815, 000.00
Fiebro Capital, LLC
3, 998, 000.00
Dissolved/Inactive entities
Corner Enterprises II, LLC
.00
Pipers Three, LLC
.00
River Oaks Construction Mgnt
.00
109 Carter, LLC
.00
SP Boyer, LLC
.00
SP New Circle Lexington, LLC
69, 000.00
SP 5200 University Parkway, LLC
.00
KNE Lake Avenue, LLC
.00
Solida Management Corp
.00
SP III, LLC
178, 000.00
Eastern 1004 Associates, LLC
.00
Other
Fieber Group
216, 000.00
Total
$20,436,000.00