Opinion
KNOFA156100801S
04-29-2016
Mary Stanley v. Kenneth Wetmore
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Leo V. Diana, J.
This action seeks the dissolution of the parties' eleven-year marriage and was commenced by a complaint dated September 14, 2015 which was returnable to the court on October 6, 2015.
The parties appeared at trial on April 27, 2016 with counsel. The court carefully considered the testimony, exhibits and financial affidavits of the parties along with the provisions of General Statutes § § 46b-81, 46b-82, other pertinent statutes and case law.
As financial matters were in dispute in this contested dissolution trial, the court orders 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 the evidence unless otherwise stated herein.
The parties were married in New London, Connecticut on February 26, 2005. In 2015 they separated in various stages after two rounds of counseling.
The plaintiff is 58 years old and is currently winding down her gift shop business, Velvet Swan, that she has owned since 1989. Due to the economy, redevelopment and the plaintiff's poor health the business has not generated a profit in years and owes considerable taxes and other debts.
The parties met in college at UCONN in the 1980s and reconnected in 1997, they have lived together since 1998. They each came into their marriage with assets and received inheritances during the marriage. An active lifestyle with trips, outings and sports brought them together with no children and significant income, they could and did as they pleased.
The plaintiff began feeling depressed, disorganized, agitated, overwhelmed and withdrawn. She went to doctors and in 2013 was diagnosed with a brain tumor. In August 2013 she had surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital to remove the tumor. After 15 hours of surgery she was in the hospital for four days and thereafter received convalescent care.
The plaintiff had a second surgery in November 2015 when another tumor was found. These surgeries have affected the plaintiff. She is not as sharp, as quick or as confident as she used to be, her outlook is positive but her employment future is uncertain.
The defendant is 55 years old, he has an engineering degree from UCONN (1984) and has worked for Electric Boat since graduation. He earns $135,000 per year working and is in good health, he is active and involved in outdoor activities. The defendant earns approximately $500 per week from dividends, interest and rental income.
In 2010 and thereafter, the defendant could not adjust to his wife's changes in behavior and felt that he did things to make her happy but she did not reciprocate. The parties were not aware of the plaintiff's health issue for approximately two years. The defendant would regularly leave notes in the house to his wife to comment on her not doing various things. The plaintiff felt those notes were demeaning, the defendant left them for her because he wanted to avoid a face-to-face confrontation. The parties constantly fought (verbal arguments). The parties engaged in counseling which began November 2011 through April 2012 then again in December 2012. Things between them did not improve. They argued and could not make each other happy.
When the defendant returned from a trip with his friend to the Grand Canyon in April 2013, the plaintiff read a text from David. Later she found that this was a female friend he met during his trip. Even though that relationship was not intimate, it was a breach of trust. The defendant printed out the text messages to prove to the plaintiff that it was a harmless relationship and they were " just friends, " however the plaintiff was not convinced. This was the last straw, something this already strained relationship could not overcome.
The plaintiff's weight gain, personality changes, increase in alcohol consumption, poor motivation and aggression were caused by her tumors. During this time period not only did this cause the breakdown in the marriage it also caused the mismanagement of the plaintiff's business. She ordered too much, continued investing money in a failing enterprise and ignored paying payroll and other state and federal taxes.
The parties testified credibly and the court finds the plaintiff's undiagnosed health issues caused her behavior to change which caused the breakdown of this marriage. Neither party was aware of the plaintiff's health issues and neither party is at fault for the breakdown of this marriage.
The court has considered all of the statutory factors enumerated in Connecticut General Statutes § § 46b-81 and 46b-82 in making the financial orders 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).
Similarly, " [§ ]46b-82 governs awards of alimony. That section requires the trial court to 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 and needs of each of the parties . . . In awarding alimony, [t]he court must consider all of these criteria . . . It need not, however, make explicit reference to the statutory criteria that it considered in making its decision or make express findings as to each statutory factor." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wiegand v. Wiegand, 129 Conn.App. 526, 536, 21 A.3d 489 (2011).
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND ORDERS
The court makes the additional findings and enters the following orders.
1. The court has jurisdiction in this matter which has been pending for more than ninety days. The plaintiff has lived in the state of Connecticut for more than one year prior to the institution of this action. The marriage has broken down irretrievably. The court finds the allegations of the complaint have been proven and are true.
The State of Connecticut has not contributed to the support of the parties.
2. The marriage of the parties is hereby dissolved and they are each declared to be single and unmarried.
3. (a) Based upon the statutory factors, including without limitation, the age, education, earnings, vocational skills, health of the plaintiff and the defendant, a time-limited award of alimony is appropriate, See, Ippolito v. Ippolito, 28 Conn.App. 745, 612 A.2d 131 cert. denied, 224 Conn. 905, 615 A.2d 1047 (1992) and that in making an award, the court has taken into consideration the division of the marital property pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-81c. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $500 per week as and for periodic alimony until the plaintiff attains the age of 65 years or if sooner until the date of death of either party or the remarriage of the plaintiff. This order shall be secured by a contingent wage withholding order. This order is non-modifiable as to term and shall be includable as income to the plaintiff and deductible by the defendant on his taxes.
(b) No alimony is awarded to the defendant.
4. The defendant shall exhaust his HSA account to pay any outstanding medical bills for the plaintiff as of the date of judgment. The parties are solely responsible for maintaining the cost of their own medical insurance coverage.
5. The Charter Oak Credit Union accounts and the E-trade account shall be divided equally by the parties. They shall equally share the cost, if any, associated with this division and each shall be responsible for any capital gains (losses) that may result.
6. The parties shall each retain their pre-marital assets.
7. The plaintiff shall retain the Burrows Street, Mystic, Connecticut property along with its equity and any and all expenses related thereto.
8. The defendant shall retain the Montauk Street, Falmouth, Massachusetts property along with its equity and any and all expenses related thereto.
9. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff 19% of his pension with General Dynamics, Electric Boat, valued at the date of judgment. The plaintiff's share shall include a proportionate share of cost of living adjustments and shall be calculated using the same early retirement subsidy, if any, applied to the defendant's remaining benefits. The administrative and processing cost of the QDRO shall be equally divided by the parties and the process shall commence forthwith. The court shall retain jurisdiction as to effectuate the transfer of this asset.
10. The parties shall retain their inherited properties.
11. The plaintiff shall retain her business known as Velvet Swan along with its assets and liabilities (including the state/federal taxes and business loan). She shall indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereto.
12. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff his Edward Jones IRA (#1118) up to $400,000; any shortfall shall be made up with a cash payment.
13. The parties shall each be solely responsible for the debts/liability as stated on their respective financial affidavits as filed at the time of trial. They shall each indemnify and hold the other harmless as to those debts/liabilities ordered to be paid by such party.
14. Personal Property --The parties shall divide their property to their mutual satisfaction, any dispute after 30 days shall be submitted to binding arbitration with the cost to be equally divided.
15. The parties shall retain any bank accounts they may hold free and clear of any claim by the other party except as provided herein.
16. Subject to the terms of this order, each of the parties shall keep the accounts listed on his or her respective financial affidavits.
17. Each of the parties will indemnify and hold the other harmless with respect to any deficiency found by reason of that parties income or deductions.
18. Each party shall be responsible for their respective attorneys fees and cost incurred in connection with this action.
19. Each party is ordered to sign whatever documents are necessary and presented to them to effectuate this order.
Unless otherwise set forth herein, these orders are effective immediately.