Opinion
No. FST FA 04-0199194 S
April 28, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
After hearing trial testimony and evidence, reviewing the file, the claims of law and fact, the court finds the following facts to have been proven:
The parties were married in Bridgeport, Connecticut on March 19, 1963. Both parties have resided in Connecticut continuously for more than one year prior to the commencement of this action and all statutory stays have expired. Therefore the court has jurisdiction. The parties had two children issue of the marriage; Anthony J. Verrico, Jr., who is deceased and Robert Venice, age 41. The evidence indicates that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. A judgment may enter dissolving the marriage on that ground.
Plaintiff (wife) is 59 years old. She has numerous health problems and states that her health is "not very good." She is suffering from pneumonia, with the last attack occurring in November 2005. She is currently taking medication and feels weak. She sustained a broken leg three years ago, which has not healed properly. She has difficulty in walking or being on her feet for periods of time. She has multiple dental problems, including infections that have migrated into the bone. She needs extensive dental work. She is learning disabled. She completed eighth grade. She attempted to obtain a GED from Adult Education but failed twice. Her employment history consists of menial tasks, including self-employment as a housekeeper. Her health currently prevents her from working. She receives income from three sources: (1) $150 per week from her step-father, Ralph Kraft, who lives with her; (2) $170 per week from her son, Robert Vericco, paid from the son's social security disability payments and (3) $494 per week from the Stamford, Connecticut rental property jointly owned by the parties. This $494 per week is the gross rent revenue. From this, the plaintiff pays all expenses for the rental property.
The defendant (husband) is 62 years old. He had two lumbar discs fused which severely limits his mobility. He had a quadruple bypass in 2003 and an angioplasty in 2005. He is a candidate for further bypass surgery. He was employed as a mail deliverer by the United States Postal Service until his back and heart surgery. He is retired. He receives $627 a month from social security and $615.76 a month from his post office pension. He has contributed to the Carpenter's Union pension but that pension is not yet in pay status.
The court heard testimony from both parties concerning the causes of the breakdown of the marriage including their dire financial condition. The court accepts the testimony of both parties that problems in this marriage have existed for a long time. This is a long-term marriage. The court declines to assess fault to either party.
The major issue is the disposition of the marital house at 35 Wakemore Street, Darien, Connecticut. It is a single-family house and is owned jointly. It was purchased from the defendant's parents. It is in need of repair. The defendant moved out of the house with the intention of moving to North Carolina. He invited the plaintiff to join him in North Carolina and requested that the marital house be sold because the family could live much cheaper in North Carolina. The plaintiff refused. After three months of marriage counseling the defendant left for North Carolina. The defendant currently owns a single-family house at 2708 Brinkley Drive, Spring Lake, North Carolina. He purchased this house for approximately $30,000. Despite improvements made by the defendant, the North Carolina house is still worth $30,000. There is no mortgage on the North Carolina house.
The marital house in Darien is occupied by the plaintiff, Ralph Kraft, her 93-year-old stepfather, Robert Verrico, the adult child and Savannah Verrico, Robert's 15-year-old daughter. Robert Verrico was seriously injured in an accident. He is paraplegic and must use a wheelchair for mobility. The plaintiff requests that the Darien house be transferred to her so that she can continue to have her stepfather, her son and her grandchild remain in the house, until her grandchild completes high school. At that time the plaintiff proposes that the house be sold and the proceeds divided. The defendant wants the house sold immediately, since both parties are not employed.
This Court has no legal authority to enter orders for the support of adult children or minor grandchildren. It has no authority to enter a division of assets for the purpose of protecting adult children and grandchildren. Loughlin v. Loughlin, 93 Conn.App. 618, 632-33, 639 (2006). "Under certain circumstances, the economic impact on an alimony recipient of caring for a minor child may be a proper consideration for the court setting term of alimony . . . however, we held that the court, in calculating an alimony award, properly excluded any evidence regarding the post-majority expenses of the parties' two children." Id. 636-37. "Similar considerations apply to grandchildren, for whom their grandparents have no legal duty of support, even where the parent of the grandchild is still a minor." Id. 639. "Guided by the foregoing, we conclude that the court's award of alimony was improper because it was ordered on the basis of illegal considerations, specifically, on the needs of the parties' adult children and grandchild. The court's comments on the record and its articulation indicate that the alimony award was meant to ensure that the plaintiff retain the marital home. Although it generally is acceptable for a court to set the term of time-limited alimony to expire with some future event, such as the maturation of a mortgage loan; see Henin v. Henin, 26 Conn.App. 386, 392-93, 601 A.2d 550 (1992); the court here went much further by opining repeatedly that the reason the plaintiff ought to have the house, and whatever support was necessary to retain it, was the ongoing needs of her adult children, and grandchild, to have a place to live." Id. 639.
A parent has no obligation to support an adult child. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 177 Conn. 47, 52-53 (1979); Broaca v. Broaca, 181 Conn. 463, 466 (1980). (The court has no authority to name adult children as irrevocable beneficiaries of a life insurance policy.) This court has no jurisdiction to enter orders to protect the plaintiff's step-father, Ralph Kraft, the adult son, Robert Verrico, Jr., or the parties' minor grandchild, either by ordering the division of assets or the provision of periodic alimony therefore.
The court believes that the parties' dire financial circumstances require the orders of the court that are entered therein.
After considering all the statutory factors set forth in General Statutes § 46b-81(c) as to equitable distribution of property, § 46b-82 as to alimony, §§ 46b-42 and 46b-87 as to counsel fees, together with O'Neill v. O'Neill, 13 Conn.App. 300 (1998), applicable case law, as well as the evidence, testimony, claims of law and claims of fact presented here, the Court hereby enters the following orders. These orders shall be considered interim postjudgment orders in the event of an appeal by either party.
The following ORDERS may enter:
1. The marriage is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
2. The marital home at 35 Walcemore Street, Darien, Connecticut shall be placed on the market and sold immediately. After the payment of usual closing costs, the reimbursement to the plaintiff for expenses paid pursuant to paragraph 21 of this court order, and the two mortgages, the net proceeds will be divided between the parties; eighty (80%) percent to the plaintiff and twenty (20%) percent to the defendant.
3. The real property at 727 Hope Street, Stamford, Connecticut shall be placed on the market and sold immediately. After the payment of usual closing costs, the net proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties.
4. The court will retain continuing jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of the sale of these two parcels of real property.
5. The defendant is awarded all right, title and interest in and to the real property at 2708 Brinkley Drive, Spring Lake, North Carolina free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from any costs and expenses including spousal obligations as to said real property.
6. Each of the parties shall pay for their respective counsel fees.
7. Each party shall be entitled to such continuing health insurance coverage as may be available under the terms of the current existing health insurance plans presently in effect, including but not limited to COBRA. Each party shall be responsible for the costs and premiums for said health insurance. Both parties shall cooperate with the other party's efforts and shall sign and provide all documents necessary to effectuate this order.
8. The plaintiff shall assume and pay for the following debts: Orthopaedic Associates of Stamford $4,081; Capital One Mastercard $3,827; Northeast Utilities $500; Ralph Kraft $14,000; Person to Person charges, if any, and one-half of Gault Fuel $1,442. The plaintiff shall pay for and hold harmless the defendant in regard thereto. This hold harmless order includes any attorneys fees incurred to defend said debts and as well as attorney fees incurred by the defendant to prosecute this hold harmless order.
9. The defendant shall assume and pay for the following debts: Barbara Pereira loan $1,037; State of Connecticut claim $1,760; one-half of Gault Fuel $1,442; auto finance repossession $5,000 and Dr. Michael Stein $615. The defendant shall pay for and hold harmless the plaintiff in regard thereto. This hold harmless order includes any attorneys fees incurred to defend said debts and as well as attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff to prosecute this hold harmless order.
10. The plaintiff shall receive as her own assets, free and clear of any claims by the defendant the following items of personal property:
A. 2000 Hyundai automobile,
B. First County Bank checking account,
C. Jewelry,
D. All furniture, fixtures, furnishings, bric-a-brac and appliances located at 35 Wakemore Street, Darien, Connecticut.
CT Page 8490
E. Fidelity Fund IRA,
F. Met Life IRA.
G. Gun collections including those in possession of Darien Police Department.
H. Bank deposits made from Ralph Kraft's monthly receipts.
I. Account with Person to Person, if any.
11. The defendant shall receive as his own assets, free and clear of any claims by the plaintiff, the following items of personal property:
A. 1975 Chevrolet Tahoe vehicle
B.B.B. and T. Bank checking account
C.B.B. and T. Bank savings account
D. All furniture, fixtures, furnishings, bric-a-brac and appliances located at 2708 Brinkley Drive, Spring Lake, North Carolina.
E. Carpenters Union Pension;
F. Fidelity Fund IRA;
G. Fidelity Fund IRA;
H. Vest Met IRA.
12. This Court reserves continuing jurisdiction over the division of personal property.
13. The parties shall copy, at their own expense all family photographs, in order that each party shall have a collection of family photographs.
14. The Court incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the Personal Property Stipulation dated January 12, 2006, the original of which has been placed in the court file. The Court has found this January 12, 2006 Stipulation fair and equitable under all of the circumstances.
15. The defendant shall pay for and maintain at his own cost and expense the following life insurance policies naming the plaintiff as irrevocable primary beneficiary: (1) Postal Service, face value $44,000; (2) Option A life insurance, face value $10,000; (3) Option B life insurance, face value $210,000 and (4) Met Life endowment age 65, face value $13,000. The defendant shall not pledge, hypothecate, borrow against or reduce the face value of said policies unless the policy itself contains an automatic reduction provision. In the event the face value of any of said policies is changed automatically pursuant to the terms of said policy, said changed face value shall become the new court ordered face value for said policy, without any further act by this court or the parties. Said automatic change of the face value shall not constitute a violation of this court order. The defendant shall provide documentary proof to the plaintiff of compliance with this insurance order no more than once per year upon written request by the plaintiff. This order is modifiable upon application by either party and the court shall consider the matter de novo without any need for or showing of a substantial change of circumstances of either party. The court reserves continuing jurisdiction over this insurance order, which is in the nature of periodic alimony.
16. Either party may pay for and maintain the current life insurance policy listed as Option C, life insurance; Leopoldine, $5,000 face value, and Robert, son, $2,500 face value listed on defendant's financial affidavit dated January 12, 2006 at their own cost and expense. This Court does not order either party to provide and pay for said life insurance policies. The parties shall elect to do so in writing no later than July 1, 2006. This court will retain continuing jurisdiction over this insurance order.
17. The parties shall divide equally the following cash assets:
A. Jointly owned Series E bonds;
B.U.S. Postal Service Thrift Savings Plan;
C.J.P. Morgan Growth and Income Fund.
18. The defendant shall maintain the U.S. Postal Service Pension and the Carpenters Union pension naming the plaintiff as the permanent primary death beneficiary. The defendant shall elect "100% to spouse" on the Carpenters Union pension and provide a copy of said election to the plaintiff.
19. Bach party shall pay periodic alimony to the other in the amount of $1.00 a year until the payee party's death or sooner remarriage.
20. The plaintiff shall continue to collect the rents from the real property at 727 Hope Street Stamford. The plaintiff shall pay all expenses whatsoever for the 727 Hope Street property including but not limited to the: real estate taxes, utilities, repairs and insurance. The plaintiff shall be entitled to keep the net proceeds of the monthly rent as her sole property free and clear of any claims by the defendant.
21. The plaintiff shall pay all expenses for the Darien property including but not limited to the first and second mortgages, real estate taxes, utilities, repairs and insurance. She shall furnish a written accounting of those expenses incurred from January 1, 2006 to the date of closing. These expenses paid by the plaintiff shall be paid to her from the closing proceeds prior to the division as per paragraph 2 of this court order. In the event the purchaser of the Darien property pays prepaid expenses at the closing, such as real estate taxes, said closing adjustments shall reduce the expense reimbursement due the plaintiff.
22. At the time of trial, the parties had not filed their 2005 income tax returns. Not all tax documents had been submitted to the parties by January 12, 2006, the last day of evidence. The court reserves continuing jurisdiction over the 2005 income tax returns and any issues resulting therefrom.
23. Each of the parties will promptly sign and deliver to the other party free of cost and expense any documents that may be necessary or desirable to effectuate or implement any of the orders of this court.
24. The court reserves continuing jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of any qualified domestic relations order necessary to put the orders set forth herein into full force and effect.
Judgment may enter accordingly.