Opinion
FA176032574S
12-08-2017
Maria ZORZOS v. Michael B. KUBISEK
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
SHAY, J.T.R.
The parties were married in Stamford, Connecticut, on October 19, 1991. They are the parents of one child, Michael Z. Kubisek, age 20. The parties currently live separate and apart. The plaintiff wife (" wife") resides in a home at 9 Old North Stamford Road, Stamford, Connecticut; while the defendant husband (" husband") lives in a room in his sister’s home in Branford, Connecticut.
The wife is 59 years old and holds both a Bachelor’s and a Master’s Degree. She told the court that she is in good health. She is a self-employed consultant with a company she formed called Maria Zorzos, LLC. In brief, she manages IT for her one steady client. She reports that for 2016 her annual income from her business after expenses was approximately $85, 000.00 per year, and that she earns an additional approximately $8, 000.00 from an annuity. The court finds that her net income is substantially understated due to business deductions that are either " soft" or are in fact paid in part by her client. (Exhibit # 3.) The parties also share a substantial loss carry forward, and a loss on a rental property.
The husband is 58 years old and has a diploma in carpentry from a vocational high school. He is self-employed, and by trade, installs wood floors for a living. He has some significant health issues which negatively impact his ability to work, namely high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes, and a genetic heart defect. He recently suffered a serious heart-related incident where he became dizzy and blacked out. That left him with some restrictions on lifting heavy objects or engaging in activities that would put pressure on his chest. In addition, he told the court that his business, M.B. Kubisek, LLC, has suffered by his competitor’s use of cheaper labor, which, he says, makes it hard to compete. The husband has also tried, unsuccessfully so far, to establish himself as a gun dealer. To that end, the husband acquired a sizeable number of firearms at what were then premium prices, but now, given the market and the more restrictive laws in Connecticut, he says his inventory is worth far less. He started a business called Sentinel Arms, LLC, but it has operated a loss.
In March of 2017, he went to Texas in hopes of starting a job there, but that soon fell through, and he has since moved back to the state and resumed his floor installation business. According to his Financial Affidavit dated November 17, 2017, he has a gross weekly income of $481.00, or approximately $25, 000.00 per annum. He reports his annual net income as $20, 280.00. In reviewing his Schedule C for M.B. Kubisek, LLC for the year 2016, the court finds that this is likely understated also in terms of substantial " soft" deductions like depreciation.
Aside from the condominium in her name alone which has no mortgage, and which she purchased shortly prior to filing this action, the principal assets of the parties include an escrow account with the proceeds from the sale of real estate, a rental property in Stamford, and raw land in Stonington, Connecticut.
The hearing took place over the course of a day, and the evidence closed on November 17, 2017. At the time of the hearing, the court denied Motion # 114.00 for reasons articulated at that time.
FINDINGS
The Court, having heard the testimony of both parties, and having considered the evidence presented at hearing, as well as the factors enumerated in General Statutes § § 46b-62(a), 46b-81, and 46b-82(a), hereby makes the following findings:
1. That alimony orders must be based upon the available net income of the parties. Procaccinni v. Procaccinni, 157 Conn.App. 804, 808 (2015); Morris v. Morris, 262 Conn. 299, 306 (2003); Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355, 358-59 (2001).
2. That according to her Financial Affidavit dated September 7, 2017 (Exhibit # 9), the net income of the wife from employment and her annuity income is $65, 792.00 per annum, which is based upon the full year 2016, and the court finds more accurately reflects her income; and that based upon his Financial Affidavit dated November 17, 2017, the net income of the husband is $20, 280.00 per annum.
3. That an award of attorneys fees is within the discretion of the court; that in making a determination as to whether or not to grant such a request, the court must look at the financial abilities of the parties and apply the criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-62(a) and § 46b-82(a); and that the award is not based upon whether one party has greater assets than the other, but rather, whether the party seeking relief has " ample liquid assets" to pay the fees, and if not, will that party be " deprived of [their] rights because of lack of sufficient funds to retain an attorney." Koizim v. Koizim, 181 Conn. 492, 500-01 (1980).
4. That the husband lacks ample liquid assets with which to pay his attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action; that the wife has ample liquid assets with which to pay her attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action; and that it is equitable and appropriate that the wife contribute to the husband’s attorneys fees and costs by way of a further retainer.
5. That in addition to the testimony and evidence, as well as the statutory factors, in making this order, the court has also taken into consideration the plaintiff’s obligation to continue to maintain health insurance for both parties at her expense.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. Defendant’s Motion for Spousal Support, Pendente Lite (# 101.00) dated July 10, 2017, is HEREBY GRANTED. Commencing January 1, 2018, and monthly thereafter, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the sum of $1, 500.00 per month as and for periodic alimony, until the death of either party or further order of court, whichever shall sooner occur.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Costs, Pendente Lite (# 102.00) dated July 10, 2017, is HEREBY GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the plaintiff shall pay to the Law Office of Richard W. Callahan, 2380 Old Dixwell Avenue, Hamden, Connecticut 06518 the sum of $10, 000.00 as and for a retainer for attorneys fees and costs incurred by the defendant in this matter.
3. Defendant’s Motion for Order Re Escrow, Pendente Lite (# 103.00) dated July 10, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED.
4. Defendant’s Motion for Order Re Authorizations, Pendente Lite (# 104.00) dated July 10, 2017, is HEREBY GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the plaintiff shall provide the requested information to the defendant’s counsel.
5. The plaintiff shall continue to maintain and pay the premiums for the current health insurance coverage for both parties until further order of court.
6. The Court hereby orders a Contingent Wage Withholding Order pursuant to General Statutes § 52-362(b) in order to secure the payment of the alimony order.
7. 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).