Statler v. Statler, No. Fa 01 0182492 S (Mar. 13, 2003)

2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 3347
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 13, 2003
DocketNo. FA 01 0182492 S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 3347 (Statler v. Statler, No. Fa 01 0182492 S (Mar. 13, 2003)) 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
Statler v. Statler, No. Fa 01 0182492 S (Mar. 13, 2003), 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 3347 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The parties to this action were married in New York, New York, on May 15, 1988. They have three minor children, to wit: Sylvia, born October 13, 1991; Lillian, born February 3, 1995; and Aron, born September 6, 1996, all of whom reside with the plaintiff wife ("wife") in the marital home at 424 Cognewaugh Road, Greenwich, Connecticut. The defendant husband ("husband") has resided elsewhere pursuant to a Stipulation (#120.10) of the parties dated June 20, 2001.

The wife is 44 years old and describes her health as good. She is a graduate of Baruch College in 1983, and received a degree in business. Following college, she held a succession of jobs outside the home, and was Vice President of Vendor Programs at Benton and Bowles shortly before the birth of their first child. In July 2000, she formed a public relations consulting firm called Face to Face, with another person, whom she later bought out. Her monthly income (after deduction for business expenses) is $3,717.

The husband is 49 years old, and he is currently on disability leave from his employer, Sands Brothers Company, Ltd. where he worked as a securities broker and portfolio strategist. The husband also has a college degree, and has held a succession of jobs in the securities field throughout the marriage. In the year 2000, his W-2 showed in excess of $490,000 income for the year. He also holds a New York State real estate broker's license. Currently, he receives two disability insurance checks per month, one from Guardian Life Insurance in the amount of $15,000, which is taxable, and another from Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance in the amount of $7,625, which is not. The last Guardian payment will be made this coming May. In addition, he receives a disability income check from the State of New York. His application for Social Security disability benefits was denied, and he has appealed the initial decision. The husband has filed, and received a discharge, for personal bankruptcy during the pendency of this action. CT Page 3348

The husband testified that while he is "physically ok," he has been diagnosed with severe depression and an anxiety disorder, for which he is taking medication. He claims to have suffered a breakdown at work sometime around mid-December 2000. The court notes that he also encountered some serious problems at work resulting in lawsuits and his taking a leave of absence at or about the same time. He claims that the wife was unresponsive and unsympathetic to his attempts to share with her the problems that he was experiencing. The court further notes that about the same time that the wife had advanced him considerable sums in order to settle some of his business affairs. These monies were never accounted for or returned to the wife.

The principal asset of the parties is the marital home at 424 Cognewaugh Road in the Cos Cob section of Greenwich, which is the residence of the wife and three minor children. She testified that, at the husband's insistence, the parties left New York in 1993, and at that time purchased the property in joint names. Title to the home is currently in the wife's name by virtue of a Quit Claim deed executed in December 1996. She now loves Connecticut, and she does not wish to leave. The court heard appraisal testimony from two experts and has reviewed their reports, which are in evidence. The opinions of fair market value range from $1,035,000 to $1,350,000, however, the court finds that the appraisal of Castiglia Associates, Inc. to be more representative of the fair market value of the property. The property has a first mortgage having a current balance of approximately $380,000, in addition to a home equity line having a balance of $150,000, which leaves an equity in the amount of $820,000. The wife testified that substantial improvements were made to the home since the initial purchase, and that approximately $100,000 of these were paid for by the wife from an inheritance from her late father. The evidence discloses that the basic monthly carrying charge (e.g., mortgages, taxes, and insurance) is approximately $4,000.00 per month. The wife testified that when the husband left the family home, he took with him some property, clothing, and the Land Rover.

A substantial amount of conflict revolved around the 1995 Porsche automobile. The car was purchased used, at the insistence of the husband, through the sale of stock and a $25,000 draw against the home equity line. The car has always been in the wife's name, although the husband is the principal driver. The wife testified that the husband has been "obsessed" with the vehicle. However, complicating matters was the wife's seizure of the car during a scheduled court appearance by both parties, and her subsequent hiding of it from the husband. The wife contended that the financial picture of the family warranted its sale. According to the financial affidavits of both parties, the car has a fair CT Page 3349 market value of between $37,000 and $40,000.

The wife testified that her father died about six years ago, and that she inherited $325,000, most of which she received in 1997. The balance, amounting to $20,000 was received in 1999. In addition to the $100,000 which she invested in the house, she gave the husband $200,000 after he told her that he had some "financial problems," including the necessity to settle lawsuits involving his employers and clients. The inheritance is now all gone.

As to the cause of the breakdown, the wife testified that she and the husband were unable to "emotionally connect," and they had not had sexual relations since the beginning of 1997, as the husband was "not interested." She said that he was critical of her "not working anymore," and that he had a "violent temper." For his part, the husband does not feel that he was at fault regarding the breakdown of the marriage. He claims that the marriage was in trouble from the very beginning, and he attributes this to problems the parties were having regarding intimacy.

The court heard from the parties over the course of three days, in addition to final argument. Several outstanding pendente lite issues were resolved by agreement or oral stipulation. The parties, by Stipulation (#197.10) dated November 22, 2002, agreed to the admission of additional evidence, which the court approved and considered the evidence closed as of that date.

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 entered into a Custody Stipulation (#179.10) dated September 10, 2002, as on file with the court, which the court finds to be in the best interest of the minor children; and that it is appropriate CT Page 3350 that the same be made part of the court file and incorporated by reference herein.

5.

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

Related

Maguire v. Maguire
608 A.2d 79 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)
Ippolito v. Ippolito
612 A.2d 131 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Milbauer v. Milbauer
733 A.2d 907 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 3347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/statler-v-statler-no-fa-01-0182492-s-mar-13-2003-connsuperct-2003.