Fils-Aime v. Fils-Aime, No. Fa00 0179920 S (Oct. 23, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13415
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedOctober 23, 2002
DocketNo. FA00 0179920 S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13415 (Fils-Aime v. Fils-Aime, No. Fa00 0179920 S (Oct. 23, 2002)) 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
Fils-Aime v. Fils-Aime, No. Fa00 0179920 S (Oct. 23, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13415 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The parties were married on September 16, 1984. There are three children of the marriage to wit: David, born January 7, 1986; Christopher, born January 24, 1990; and Claire born April 19, 1996. The parties have been living separate and apart since August of 2000. The children spend significant time with each parent pursuant to a Stipulated Parenting Agreement (#134) dated January 8, 2001.

The husband is 41 years old and college educated. He is in good health. He has had a succession of jobs while climbing the corporate ladder during the course of the marriage. Currently, he is a senior vice-president of MTV Networks (a VIACOM Company). He has a base salary of $303,000 a year together with a discretionary bonus which is tied to the company's performance. His 2001 bonus, paid in February 2002, amounted to $105,444. He also receives a vehicle allowance of $500.00 per month.

The wife is 39 years old and also in good health. She has a Bachelor of Science degree from Cornell University where the parties met. In addition to her homemaking and child rearing responsibilities, she has held a succession of jobs, some full-time and some part-time, throughout the marriage. Basically, she put her career plans "on hold" to attend to her homemaker functions, as well as to assist the husband along his own career path. Presently, she is working as a real estate broker with no significant income shown at the time of trial. However, her updated financial affidavit indicates that she earned $15,000.00 for the first eight months of 2002.

During the course of these proceedings the parties sold the marital residence at 8 Gault Avenue in Westport and divided the net proceeds. Each of the parties, in turn, purchased separate residences in Fairfield. Throughout the marriage the parties have accumulated a variety of assets some for retirement and others as savings vehicles. While the principal bone of contention appears to be his receipt of a payment of CT Page 13416 approximately $90,000 from his previous employer, Derby Cycle. This represented the repayment to him a mandatory $75,000 capital investment he made in connection with his employment, together with a sum calculated to offset any taxes which might become due and payable. In addition, the husband signed a promissory note to Derby Cycle in the amount of $225,000 which he claims is still a current debt, although no credible evidence was introduced to indicate that the company was actively pursuing that claim to date. The rub came when the husband repeatedly failed to disclose the payment of these monies, even after requests by the wife and her counsel. Subsequently, extensive further discovery efforts by the wife confirmed the payment and led to the belated production of relevant documents. Some evidence was introduced that all or a portion of these monies was spent by the husband. The wife is seeking her share of this asset, as well as some offset of her attorney's fees incurred due to the husband's deceptive failure to disclose a marital asset.

Throughout the marriage the wife's parents gave the couple gifts totaling approximately $160,000. This includes approximately $23,000, which represents the forgiveness of the balance of a $30,000 loan for the purchase of the husband's car.

The wife attributes the breakdown of the marriage to the fact that the husband was "not involved" with the house or the children, and to the fact that she felt "emotionally abandoned." She said that she was "treated like the hired the help," and that her husband was often "sullen and moody," refusing to discuss family issues. The couple tried counseling in late 1999 and early 2000, but the wife realized the husband was not going to change. She testified that she gained more than one hundred pounds over the course of the marriage, and in July of 1998, she started an exercise program and lost ninety-five pounds. For his part' the husband indicated that he encouraged the wife in her exercise program, indicating that it would be healthy for her to do so. He denies being uninvolved with the children, and he testified regarding many of the activities in which he participated with them. The husband attributes the breakdown of the marriage specifically to the wife's ongoing extramarital affair with one Brian Curry, whom she met in a computer chat room. He indicated that he suggested further counseling and asked the wife to recommit herself to the marriage. She indicated to him that she could not do so, and she continues to see Mr. Curry. Each must, therefore bear some responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage.

The case was heard over the course of four days including final argument. At the close of the hearing both parties submitted proposed orders. The plaintiff has in addition submitted a pleading entitled Claim of Facts Proven (#138.10) dated February 5, 2002. The defendant has filed CT Page 13417 a Motion for Order (#147) dated February 19, 2002 in which he objecting to the filing of plaintiff's claim of facts proven. For the record, the court did not consider the plaintiff's pleading in its decision since it is not in conformity with and well beyond the scope of P.B. § 25-30 which defines the nature of proposed orders. Subsequent to the last trial date, the wife asked the court to keep the evidence open until October 1, 2002, coincident with the effective date of P.A. 02-128 dealing with post-majority educational support orders. The wife also filed a Motion to Open Evidence (#148) dated June 27, 2002, referencing its earlier request and for the express purpose of introducing evidence of the husband's recently-received bonus. The court heard oral argument, accepted briefs, and rendered its decision on August 26, 2002, granting the wife's request to consider evidence of the bonus, and denying the relief sought by the wife regarding an educational support order. Due to the passage of time, the court asked both parties to file updated financial affidavits, which were filed by August 30, 2002, at which time the court considered the evidence closed. The husband included evidence of his bonus at that time.

FINDINGS
The Court, having heard the testimony of both parties, and having considered the evidence presented at hearing, as well as the factors enumerated in General Statutes §§ 46b-56, 46b-81, 46b-82, 46b-84, and46b-215a, including the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines Regulations, hereby makes the following findings:

1. That it has jurisdiction.

2. That the allegations of the complaint are proven and true.

3. That the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably, and that ample evidence exists that both parties have contributed to said breakdown.

4. That the parties have agreed to a certain parenting plan as set forth in a certain Stipulation re: Parenting Plan (#134) dated January 8, 2001, which the court finds to be in the best interest of the minor children.

5. That the combined net weekly income of the parties is in excess of the maximum Child Support Guidelines amount; that the presumptive minimum basic child support is $684.00 per week; and that the husband's share (including health insurance for the minor children) is $628.00 per week; and that it is equitable and appropriate under all the circumstances that CT Page 13418 the court enter support orders in excess thereof

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

Related

Wolk v. Wolk
464 A.2d 780 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)
Bornemann v. Bornemann
752 A.2d 978 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
Bender v. Bender
785 A.2d 197 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2001)
Flynn v. Flynn
510 A.2d 1005 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)
Ippolito v. Ippolito
612 A.2d 131 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Rolla v. Rolla
712 A.2d 440 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Carroll v. Carroll
737 A.2d 963 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
Wendt v. Wendt
757 A.2d 1225 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2000)
Porter v. Porter
769 A.2d 725 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fils-aime-v-fils-aime-no-fa00-0179920-s-oct-23-2002-connsuperct-2002.