From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosiello v. Rosiello

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
Feb 17, 2009
2009 Ct. Sup. 3586 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)


No. FA08-4016774S

February 17, 2009


This is an action for dissolution of marriage and other relief brought to the judicial district of Waterbury. The plaintiff and the defendant, whose maiden name was Carol A. Misinonile, were married on July 10, 1971 in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The plaintiff has resided in this state continuously for at least 12 months immediately prior to the date the complaint was filed. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably without any reasonable prospect of reconciliation. There are two children of this marriage, both of whom are over the age of 23. Neither party has received support or assistance from the State of Connecticut or any town or municipality of the state.

The plaintiff was born on June 30, 1947. He has some post-high school education and is currently employed as a cook for Bell Foods. In that position he works 40 hours per week at $9.75 per hour, earning him a weekly gross income of $390 and net income of $322.83. In addition, on Friday nights and Saturdays he works 12 to 13 hours at a pizza restaurant earning him additional gross weekly income of $161.50, with a net income of $136.94. Both positions require the plaintiff to work on his feet for substantial periods of time, even though there is evidence that he has blocked arteries in both legs that may well require surgery in the future.

The defendant was born on May 5, 1950. She is a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage she worked at numerous jobs, primarily in retail sales. Although she is not steadily employed at the present time, she is residing with and caring for an elderly couple, who provide for her basic needs. She appears to be satisfied with this arrangement so long as she remains unemployed.

The parties have very responsibly addressed and resolved many of the issues presented by this action. They have stipulated and agreed that:

1. They have equitably divided all of their assets;

2. They shall each be responsible for the debts shown on their respective financial affidavits; that any debts not reflected on each party's financial affidavit will be the responsibility of the party in whose name the debt is in; and that each party will hold the other party harmless from any liability associated with the debts they have assumed by their agreement;

3. Each party shall maintain their own medical and life insurance, as they may choose, and pay their respective premiums for the same;

4. Each party shall be responsible to pay their respective counsel fees and costs; and

5. The only issue in dispute, to be resolved by the court, is the issue of alimony. In this regard it should be noted that the plaintiff has waived any claim to receive alimony.

Each of the parties is asking the court to award alimony based upon events that are not certain as to time or eventuality. The plaintiff believes that his income may be substantially reduced once his legs are operated upon, yet there is no scheduled operation at this point in time. The defendant believes that alimony should be awarded to initially give her 54% of combined net income so that she can maintain her own apartment, yet apparently has no imminent plans to move out of her current arrangement, where she has virtually no household expenses. Either of these events in the future may cause an order of alimony to be modified, but any modification caused by those changes must be based upon facts and circumstances that exist at that time. This court cannot predict if or when those changes might occur or what those circumstances will be. Just as any future orders must be based upon the facts and circumstances that exist at that time, the current orders must be based upon the facts and circumstances that exist at this time. Currently, there is no question but that the parties are in difficult financial straits. The plaintiff is not able to pay an alimony order that would make the defendant financially secure. Under these circumstances, the living and working arrangements of the parties seem to be working reasonably well at the present time, and the following orders are in consideration of those facts.

This Court has specifically considered the statutory provisions and case law affecting the issues in this case as well as the testimony and evidence presented by the parties. The Court enters the following orders:

CT Page 3588


The marriage of the parties is hereby dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown and each party is declared to be single and unmarried.


The plaintiff is to pay alimony to the defendant in the amount of $75 per week. Alimony is to terminate upon the earliest of the following events: death of either party, remarriage of the defendant or her cohabitation with another person under circumstances that alter her financial needs, as defined by statute and case law.


1. Any tax refund received by either party as a result of filings for the 2008 tax year shall be divided equally;

2. Any government stimulus check, if received by either party before July 1, 2009, shall be divided equally;

3. The parties are ordered to exchange copies of their federal and state income tax returns by certified mail return receipt or registered mail return receipt within 30 days after such returns have been filed, but in no event not later than June 1 of each year, for so long as there is an outstanding alimony order or any outstanding arrearage;

4. Counsel for the plaintiff is to prepare the judgment file within 30 days and send it to counsel for the defendant for signature and filing.

Summaries of

Rosiello v. Rosiello

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
Feb 17, 2009
2009 Ct. Sup. 3586 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)
Case details for

Rosiello v. Rosiello

Case Details


Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury

Date published: Feb 17, 2009


2009 Ct. Sup. 3586 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)