Opinion
No. FA06-4005648
April 25, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff and the defendant intermarried at Branford, Connecticut on September 23, 1995. The parties have resided in Connecticut since the date of the marriage. The marriage has broken down irretrievably with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. There are no minor children legal issue of the marriage nor have children been born to the plaintiff wife, since the date of the marriage. Neither the State of Connecticut nor any town thereof is contributing to the support or maintenance of either party.
The plaintiff brought this action seeking dissolution of the marriage and the defendant has counterclaimed also seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The parties live together in a romantic relations since approximately June of 1990. They purchased a home together in April of 1993. The marital home is located at 180 Glenwood Road, Clinton, Connecticut. Subsequently, they married in September of 1995. They continued to reside together in the marital home until December of 1998. At that time, the plaintiff voluntarily left the marital home. The defendant has continued to reside in the marital home and to pay the mortgage, taxes and maintenance expenses of such property. The defendant has also had the exclusive use of the property since the plaintiff left.
In the years since the separation, the parties have made intermittent efforts at reconciliation, which efforts proved unsuccessful. Neither party asserts a fault basis for the breakdown of the marital relationship.
The plaintiff is forty-four years of age and the defendant is forty-two years of age. The plaintiff has had prior employment in the nursing field, but for a number of years has been employed as a cosmetologist or hairdresser. She owns and runs her own business renting a chair in a salon with a half a dozen other cosmetologists.
The defendant is a high school graduate with two years of electronics technical training. He has been employed in that field for approximately twenty years and is currently a product manager for Honeywell. The defendant has a significantly higher income than the plaintiff.
The case was heard by the court as a limited contested case wherein the parties disputed financial issues incident to the dissolution of marriage. The issues before the court were the plaintiff's claim for alimony; the fair market value of the jointly owned marital residence; the respective equity interest of the parties in the marital home and the plaintiff's interest in the defendant's 401K retirement plan.
The plaintiff seeks an award of periodic alimony at the rate of $150.00 per month for a period of two years with life insurance to insure such obligation.
The court declines to award alimony to either party. The parties have been separated for a number of years during which they separated their financial affairs. With exceptions being the defendant retaining the plaintiff on his medical insurance coverage for a portion of the period of the separation. The defendant's assumption of the cost of the marital home would represent the only other exception to their separation of their financial lives.
The parties both worked during the entire period of the marriage. The plaintiff as a result of her interest in marital assets will receive a significant cash payment which would further obviate the need for an alimony award.
The parties introduced competing appraisal experts who respectively found the property to be valued at $225,000 and $265,000. The court finds the fair market value of the 180 Glenwood Road, Clinton property to be $250,000. The outstanding mortgage balance is approximately $89,000, leaving approximately $161,000 of equity in the property.
The primary issue in the trial was the parties' different views on the determination of their respective interest in the marital properly. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's interest in the property was more property valued at the time of the separation on or about January 1, 1999. The defendant further argued that any interest that the plaintiff would have in the increase in equity beyond that date would be substantially less than one half. The defendant also argued that he made a more substantial contribution to the funds used for the down payment on the property.
Our law is clear that marital property should be valued as to the date of the dissolution and not the date of separation. Zern v. Zern, 15 Conn.App. 292, 296 (1988).
The date of evaluation of marital property is also relevant to the defendant's 401K retirement plan which is valued at the time of dissolution at $102,656. Approximately $5,000 of that amount was premarital accumulation.
The Zern case noted in an analogous scenario where the parties had separated and then subsequently divorced "the extent to which the efforts of one spouse may have led to an increase in value of property without any monetary or nonmonetary contribution by the other spouse after the parties' separation should be taken into account by the trial court in determining the division of property incident to a dissolution of marriage action." 15 Conn.App. at 296.
The court has valued the property as of the date of the dissolution. However, in recognizing the efforts of the defendant with respect to the increase in value of the marital residence and the 401K plan, awards the defendant a greater share in both assets. With respect to the marital home the plaintiff is awarded $70,000. This represents approximately 44% of the equity in the marital home. The 401K asset represents an even greater disproportion and contribution in the increase in value of property. This asset represents very little contribution by the plaintiff.
The parties anticipate that the defendant will be able to refinance the marital home to payoff the equity interest of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is awarded the marital home. The plaintiff is to quit-claim her interest in such property in exchange for a payment of $70,000. The defendant has sixty days in which to refinance the property to remove the plaintiff's mortgage obligation with respect to such property and to pay off her equity interest. If this is not accomplished, the property must be sold and the plaintiff's $70,000 interest paid from the proceeds of such sale.
The plaintiff's $20,000 interest in the defendant's 401K asset may be satisfied by the defendant in one of two ways. The $20,000 can be conveyed to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The cost and preparations of such order shall be shared equally by the parties. Alternatively, the defendant can pay the plaintiff the $20,000 within six months of this order.
The court will retain jurisdiction to effectuate such orders.
In fashioning this judgment, the court has considered all the statutory factors.