Round v. Round, No. Fa 93 0063824 (Mar. 21, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2581
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 21, 1995
DocketNo. FA 93 0063824
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2581 (Round v. Round, No. Fa 93 0063824 (Mar. 21, 1995)) 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
Round v. Round, No. Fa 93 0063824 (Mar. 21, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2581 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Jennie D. Round, age 49, whose maiden name was Jennie Dynesius, and the defendant, Byron J. Round, age 50 were married at Chattanooga, Tennessee on June 24, 1967. There are three children issue of the marriage, Jeffrey, age 21, Kristin, age 20 and Kirk Stuart, a minor, born November 22, 1979. The matter is before the court following a limited contested trial for dissolution of the marriage.

At the time the parties met, the defendant was attending medical school to become a dentist. After the marriage, the plaintiff who had two years of college obtained full time employment to support the couple. She also continued to work while her husband went on to further education to qualify as an orthodontist.

After the defendant opened his practice, the plaintiff CT Page 2582 assisted him in his office, painting and decorating, and lawn care. In addition she took care of the children and household.

Initially, the parties resided in Torrington, later moving to Litchfield where they acquired a substantial home listed in the wife's name. This property has an appraised value of $1,200,000 to $1,300,000 but a more realistic figure is closer to $1,000,000. This property is subject to a mortgage of approximately $360,000.00.

The defendant owns an office at 332 Bantam Road in Litchfield valued at $225,000.00 and another office at 227 Main Street, Torrington valued at $238,000.00. These properties are free and clear of any mortgage.

The plaintiff has minimal income of $41.00 per week and claimed expenses of $1,773.25 per week. Aside from the real estate located at 42 Old South Road, Litchfield, Mrs. Round has a 1993 Saab automobile, home furnishings valued at $100,000.00 and an IRA account of $23,783.60.

The defendant has filed an affidavit showing no income which the court finds to be totally false. The defendants' average income for the years 1989 to 1993 is in the area of $230,000.00. (See Appendix A attached). Aside from his two offices valued at $463,000.00, Dr. Round has a 1993 Ford Explorer, an IRA of $68,376.00, a profit sharing fund of $420,341.00, and office equipment and cash of $132,100.00. His practice is valued at $310,100.00. Likewise, he has a life insurance policy with a face value of $350,000.00. The parties also have two trusts to provide for the education of Kristen and Kirk.

The marriage was a stable one until December 1991. Commencing December 22, 1991, the defendant carried on an illicit affair with a patient. This relationship continued until March 1992 and included sexual encounters, gifts of jewelry and cards. The court finds that although the patient may have been the instigator, Dr. Round was a willing participant. It is clear that this affair is the predominate cause of the breakdown.

There is also evidence that the plaintiff developed a close personal relationship with a male neighbor somewhat senior in age. No evidence was offered to indicate that these individuals engaged in any sexual relationship although the plaintiff did spend more time than would be considered reasonable in a stable CT Page 2583 marriage.

Two of the parties children are adults. Their son Kirk, age 16, lives in Litchfield and attends Litchfield High School where he should continue. There appears to be a close relationship between the defendant and his son. Under the circumstances joint custody is indicated.

As stated previously, the defendant has filed a false affidavit showing no income. The court finds, however, that his average income between 1989 to 1993 is over $230,000.00 per year. Dr. Round has demonstrated a substantial earning capacity and it is only through improper accounting practices has he been able to show a reduced annual income. (See Appendix B). Johnson v.Johnson, 185 Conn. 573, 576.

As stated in Rubin v. Rubin, 204 Conn. 224 at 233:

General Statutes § 46b-82, which currently authorizes the court to order alimony, neither defines the term "alimony" nor restricts the scope of the award. In conferring discretion upon the court to determine "whether alimony shall be awarded, and the duration and amount of the award," § 46b-82 directs the court to consider "the length of the marriage, the causes for the annulment, dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties and the award, if any, which the court may make pursuant to section 46b-81 . . . ." We have often stated that the type and amount of alimony awarded under a decree dissolving a marriage is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Tworek v. Tworek, 170 Conn. 259, 260, 365 A.2d 392 (1976); Krieble v. Krieble, 168 Conn. 7, 7, 357 A.2d 475 (1975).

Rubin, 204 Conn. at 233.

The plaintiff lists weekly expenses as follows:

Mortgage $675.00 Taxes 341.00 Homeowner's ins. 29.00 Fuel Oil 125.00 Electricity 75.00 Water 23.00 CT Page 2584 Basic Telephone 26.00 Trash Collection 5.00 Cable Television 9.00 Household maintenance/repairs 75.00 Auto ins. 21.00 Auto taxes 7.00 ------------ Total weekly expenses $1,411.00

In this case, the court finds that an allowance to prosecute is justified based upon the respective financial abilities of the parties and the statutory criteria. Kozim v. Kozim,181 Conn. 492, 500; Holley v. Holley, 194 Conn. 25, 34.

Based upon the evidence and the criteria set forth in the general statutes, the court finds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and the following orders should enter.

1. A decree of dissolution dissolving the marriage.

2. Alimony in the amount of $8,000.00 per month payable $4,000.00 on or before the fifth day of each month and $4,000.00 payable on or before the twentieth day of each month, until the death or remarriage of the plaintiff. The defendant shall name the plaintiff irrevocable beneficiary on a life insurance policy with a face value of $250,000.00 so long as he is obligated to pay alimony.

3. Joint custody of the minor child, Kirk Stuart Round subject to reasonable, liberal and flexible visitation to the defendant which shall include Friday after school to Monday morning in time for school attendance.

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

Related

Koizim v. Koizim
435 A.2d 1030 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
Johnson v. Johnson
441 A.2d 578 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1981)
Krieble v. Krieble
357 A.2d 475 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Tworek v. Tworek
365 A.2d 392 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1976)
Holley v. Holley
478 A.2d 1000 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1984)
Rubin v. Rubin
527 A.2d 1184 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/round-v-round-no-fa-93-0063824-mar-21-1995-connsuperct-1995.