Opinion
No. FA04 0071920
June 24, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This action was brought by the plaintiff wife seeking a dissolution of marriage from the defendant husband. Each party was represented by counsel, and prior to the trial, the parties stipulated to the entry of several final orders and confined their claims to certain areas of dispute.
Based on the evidence, including the testimony of the parties, and the court's assessment of their credibility and demeanor, the court makes the following findings.
The court has jurisdiction over the matter. The parties were married on May 21, 1966 in Pomfret, Connecticut. Both parties resided in Connecticut at least twelve continuous months prior to the plaintiff filing this dissolution complaint. All statutory stays have expired. The parties stipulated that the marriage has broken down irretrievably with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The parties have no children presently under the age of 23 years. They have four children over 23 years of age.
At the time of trial the plaintiff was 60 years old. She was a high school graduate. She had a limited employment history outside of the home being primarily responsible for raising their family. She had recently been trained and certified as an emergency medical technician (EMT), and had worked part-time as such in Putnam. In April 2004 she relocated to South Carolina and was employed full-time there as an EMT. She expects to work in such capacity as long as she can meet the physical demands of the job, which include being able to lift a 150-pound person.
At the time the plaintiff filed this dissolution action she had health insurance through her husband's business. The defendant discontinued the plaintiff's health insurance and on August 9, 2004, the court (Cosgrove, J.) ordered the defendant to maintain health insurance for the benefit of the plaintiff until health insurance was available to her through her employer. The plaintiff has applied for health insurance in South Carolina, but has been unable to secure the same. The plaintiff was in reasonably good health at the time of trial. During the pendency of this action, the plaintiff had incurred $1,040.07 in expenses for medical tests and treatment. The bills would have been covered by the health insurance in force at the commencement of this action.
At the time of trial, the defendant was 63 years old. He was in the bottled water business, and in great financial difficulties. He claimed the business was worthless. Throughout the marriage, the defendant had been the responsible and motivating agent for several different businesses. The businesses had been held in different forms of ownership, some of which had the plaintiff as primary shareholder and officer. Regardless of the form of ownership or title of the parties, the defendant controlled the businesses. None of the businesses had long-term success. The parties, at differing times, had filed for bankruptcy protection as individuals and on behalf of the businesses. Tax returns were not timely filed. The IRS had attached bank accounts and further aggravated their financial status.
While the business dealings and circumstances were murky, it was clear to the court that the defendant controlled their commercial dealings and bore the responsibility for any commercial failings. It was also clear that the plaintiff was not an innocent spouse, and went along with the defendant's machinations. The only remaining asset of value was the family home, which is heavily encumbered.
The defendant allowed the plaintiff's health insurance to lapse, yet retained his own coverage. He was residing in the marital home, and maintaining the same, although it was heavily encumbered. It was in his name alone. He was attempting to reach an accommodation with his creditors which would allow him to keep the home and preserve some equity in it. He was neither forthright nor credible with respect to his financial affairs, other than they were troubled.
During the pendency of the action the parties divided their personal property to their satisfaction. The parties were in agreement on the payment of most debts. They disagreed as to the defendant's holding the plaintiff harmless, which the court believes is a harbinger of anticipated default. The court is convinced the defendant will not pay any debt unless he has no other option.
Having found the allegations of the complaint proven, the court orders:
1. The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
2. The plaintiff and defendant will each retain the personal property in their own possession.
3. The defendant shall pay the debts listed on his financial affidavit, as well as the debt to Pomfret School and Remington listed on the plaintiff's affidavit. The plaintiff shall pay the other debts listed on her affidavit. Each party shall hold the other harmless with respect to those debts.
4. The defendant shall waive any and all interest that he may have in and to the 2000 GMC. The plaintiff shall be responsible to pay the insurance and current taxes with regard to said vehicle.
5. Each party shall pay to the other $1.00 per year as periodic alimony, terminable upon death of either party, or the remarriage or cohabitation of the recipient party.
6. The defendant shall maintain COBRA coverage for the maximum period allowed by state or federal law or until such time as the plaintiff is able to obtain health insurance coverage at a reasonable cost through her place of employment. The defendant shall be responsible to pay the cost of said coverage. The defendant shall also be responsible to reimburse the plaintiff for the sum of $1,040.07, said sum representing reimbursement due to the plaintiff as a result of medical bills not being paid due to a lapse in insurance coverage caused by the defendant's failure to timely pay the premiums.
7. The defendant shall be allowed to continue to reside in the former marital home located at 288 Woodstock Avenue, Putnam, Connecticut. He shall be responsible to pay all encumbrances with regard to said property including any mortgages, taxes, insurance, utilities, the judgments to Pomfret School, Internal Revenue Service, Remington Investments, Inc. and shall hold the plaintiff harmless from the payment thereof. In the event that the property is ever sold while the defendant holds a legal or equitable interest, either by voluntary or involuntary sale, after payment of all mortgages, liens and reasonable and necessary closing expenses, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as a property settlement 25% of the net proceeds.
8. The plaintiff shall retain the IRA in her name. The defendant shall retain the Soger, IPX and ENTU stock listed on his Financial Affidavit.
9. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff 49% of his interest in Country Springs, Inc. or any of its subsidiary of affiliates, including his stock. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from any and all obligations, including tax obligations, that Country Springs, Inc. may have. The plaintiff shall be entitled to receive 49% of the proceeds of any sale of stock or 49% of the proceeds of any sale of any of the assets of Country Springs, Inc.
10. Each party is responsible for his or her own counsel fees.
11. The defendant shall assume and pay and hold the plaintiff harmless from any state or federal tax obligations that arose from the filing of any of the parties' joint tax returns.
12. The court finds that the obligations created herein are in the nature of spousal support and shall not be dischargeable by either party in the event of a bankruptcy filing.
13. Each party shall promptly and without charge execute and deliver to the parties such other papers, documents and instruments as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the agreement of the parties.
Driscoll, J.