Cuccaro v. Cuccaro, No. Fa97 34 00 68 S (Apr. 28, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5185
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedApril 28, 1998
DocketNo. FA97 34 00 68 S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5185 (Cuccaro v. Cuccaro, No. Fa97 34 00 68 S (Apr. 28, 1998)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cuccaro v. Cuccaro, No. Fa97 34 00 68 S (Apr. 28, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5185 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The parties were married in Bridgeport, Connecticut on September 19, 1970. At the time of this hearing there was one minor child, Lauren, born February 29, 1980, who is presently a senior at Bunnell High School in Stratford, Connecticut. There are two other adult children issue of this twenty-seven year marriage, Meghan, age 24 of Westport, Connecticut and Kevin, age 20, a junior at the University of Connecticut.

The plaintiff, age 50, is a high school graduate who also attended New Haven College for two years. This is her first marriage and she enjoys good health with no stated medical problems. She worked periodically and mostly part-time during the early years of her marriage for the Southern New England Telephone Company, Gimbel's Department Store on two occasions, and Fairfax Cardinal Aviation. Most of her work experience was with her husband and his electrical contracting business known as Meg Electric, Inc. However, she has not worked full time since the birth of her first child and has no retirement benefits.

The wife explained that Meg Electric started operation in 1977-78 "out of their home with an office in the basement and that she was the office." The wife was an officer and director of Meg Electric but never a stockholder and worked mostly without compensation "on and off" for approximately an eleven year period. She handled the invoices, accounts receivable and payable and in general ran the office. She related that Meg Electric grew larger and the number of its employees fluctuated between two and fourteen. She was familiar with the gross sales of Meg Electric which she stated went over a million dollars yearly on several occasions. Meg Electric moved its operation to 955 Connecticut Avenue, in the 1986-88 period when the husband purchased that property for between $225,000 and $250,000 dollars. The wife further testified that the husband drew a salary and also received rental income from Meg Electric and the two tenants who leased space at 955 Connecticut Avenue. She also explained that some of her husband's personal expenses such as his car, life and medical insurance, entertainment and other expenses were paid by Meg Electric in addition to the salary he also received. CT Page 5187

The wife testified that by agreement of the parties she has been receiving $2,500 monthly from her husband to pay the home mortgage, taxes and insurance on the marital residence plus $450 weekly of which $183 was alimony and $267 was for child support. She stated that on September 28, 1996, her husband "told her that he was leaving and he just walked out." She claimed to have been "a basket case, depressed and with no motivation" I when her husband left. She stated that he told her that he would be at the business address on Connecticut Avenue but that in reality he had moved in with another woman, S.Z., who was 35 years old and that he is still with her. The wife has made some effort to find employment during the last several months and has had interviews but no job offers. She states that she is "not computer literate and that her job skills are not current." She later admitted that both parties had previously discussed their unhappiness in the marriage, that she had suggested marriage counseling but that the husband didn't think it would help.

The wife was particularly upset that when she asked her husband to fix the swimming pool liner, he drained the pool but did not fix the liner and left the pool in an unusable condition. Further, he would not help with the fall leaf cleanup as "he didn't live there anymore." The husband later stated that he tried to fix the pool liner but that he was unable to do so and was very much against spending about $8,000 in 1993 to fix the pool.

The wife's financial affidavit reflects her occupation as "homemaker" with a $100 weekly net income and she itemizes $1450 in weekly expenses. She lists the marital dwelling at 175 Hinman Street, Stratford, Connecticut at $325,000 encumbered by a $70,500 mortgage, a $99,600 home equity loan, a $13,000 business lien, and an IRS lien of $11,500 leaving a net equity of $130,400. She also shows an investment in Meg Electric, Inc. of unknown value, together with household furnishings of unknown value and an IRA-Kemper fund which she values at $5,078 for a total cash value of $135,478 in assets. Her listed liabilities total $35,594 and include credit card debt of approximately $11,000 which she testified represents "pre-separation debt," $15,450 in loans from her family to assist her with living expenses after her husband left, $7500 which she borrowed from her children to pay other outstanding bills and an $1800 bank loan to finance a family trip to Jamaica some twelve years ago.

On cross examination the wife stated that she had looked for CT Page 5188 employment at about five different businesses during the fourteen month separation, could not afford therapy after the husband left, that there were about three times during the marriage when the couple was unhappy with each other, five years ago, twelve years ago and another time during the marriage but that they had previously been able to reconcile their differences. However, she did not feel that the marriage was over until the husband advised her in September of 1996, that he was moving out. She added that she knew he was having a sexual affair with another woman because he told her so. The wife concluded her testimony by stating that she felt it was a good marriage for twenty-six years, that she worked with her husband, never had need to see a lawyer or call one and was never unfaithful to him or even thought about it.

The defendant husband, age 51, is a University of Connecticut college graduate in apparent good health, albeit a "minor heart attack suffered last year" which resulted in an angioplasty procedure. He related that his first job was with Carpenter Steel as an inside customer representative and that he has been an electrical contractor and President of Meg Electric for about twenty-one years. The husband stated that the sources of his income were from Meg Electric sales, rental income from Meg Electric and the two other tenants who lease space in his 955 Connecticut Avenue real estate. On questioning by the wife's attorney he readily admitted that he was living with the "other woman" and that he paid the rent and all utilities in their present residence. He stated that he had expenses of approximately $106,000 yearly, recently had to borrow $8,000 from his mother and that he owes approximately another $8,000 in medical bills. He testified that he is the president and sole stockholder of Meg Electric but could not put a value on the business. He stated that "I am the business" which is now down to two employees from a high of fourteen and owns only three trucks. The husband graciously agreed that his wife during the marriage cleaned the house, did all of the laundry, cooked all of the meals, raised their three children and never had the assistance of household help, a cleaning lady or a gardener. When questioned about his finances the husband explained the $31,698 on his financial affidavit was the amount he borrowed from the Corporation which he has yet to pay back.

The husband also stated he borrowed $8,000 from his mother which he must pay back even though it is not listed on his Financial Affidavit. He also has a $500,000 life insurance policy with his wife as the present beneficiary and further pay for his CT Page 5189 son's college expenses.

When questioned by his lawyer, the husband testified that this was the fourth time the couple had serious marital problems. On the first three occasions, the wife never mentioned counseling.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Posada v. Posada
427 A.2d 406 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
Fucci v. Fucci
425 A.2d 592 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
Valante v. Valante
429 A.2d 964 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
Scherr v. Scherr
439 A.2d 375 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1981)
Weiman v. Weiman
449 A.2d 151 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Thomas v. Thomas
271 A.2d 62 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1970)
Ehrenkranz v. Ehrenkranz
479 A.2d 826 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1984)
Blake v. Blake
541 A.2d 1201 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)
O'Neill v. O'Neill
536 A.2d 978 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuccaro-v-cuccaro-no-fa97-34-00-68-s-apr-28-1998-connsuperct-1998.