Casiraghi v. Casiraghi

Christopher CASIRAGHI v. Paula CASIRAGHI

No. FA124024361S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Stamford

October 4, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

OPINION

SHAY J.T.R.

The marriage of the parties was dissolved by decree of this court on September 11, 2014. They are the parents of three children, all under the age of twenty-three, one of whom has reached her majority, to wit: Isabel, age 18; Lillian, age 16; and Charlotte, age 13. The children reside primarily with defendant wife ("wife") at the former marital home at 4 Shagbark Place, Wilton, Connecticut. The plaintiff husband ("husband") has recently moved in with his current significant other at her condominium, where he contributes to the monthly rent and utilities.

The husband is 60 years of age. He owns and operates a business installing and repairing paddle courts by way of two legal entities called RPTC, LLC and Paddle Court Builders, LLC. The husband told the court that he has been in the business for 46 years, and he considers his business to be the premier company in this field. Moreover, he considers himself "uniquely qualified," in other words, he is the proverbial indispensable man. As a result, his business takes him all over the country. As paddle tennis is essentially a winter sport, his "tours" of inspection take place from January through July. These are fly-drive weekends in which he traditionally views and assesses literally hundreds of paddle tennis courts. Until recently, the company operated without any significant competition. That has now changed. According to his current financial affidavit dated August 21 2018, as on file with the court, the husband has a net income from employment in the amount of $180,700.00 based upon a gross income of $283,000.00. In addition, he receives rental income from his property at 300 Post Road in Westport.

The husband told the court that he has had a heart condition all of his life called mitral valve regurgitation, but at the time of the dissolution his health was "pretty good." He exercised regularly on his cross-fit machine and played ice hockey. Although he has seen a cardiologist for most of his life, his recent medical history has had a profound impact upon him and the manner in which he conducts his business. The husband noticed changes in his health in late 2014, and he was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation in early 2015. As a result, he has been treated conventionally with medication, and from time to time with more invasive medical procedures. This included a 6-1/2-hour open-heart surgery on July 1, 2015 to repair his mitral valve, and an ablation in 2017, as well as the installation of a monitor all without much lasting success. (Exhibits # 4 through # 8.) In fact, he suffered another round of A-fib in November 2016 and again in February 2018. The surgery was followed by a four-month period of recovery where his activities, including driving, were limited. The husband was also diagnosed with kidney stones. He has repeatedly complained of extremely high levels of stress for a prolonged period. Since his surgery in 2015, he told the court that he has had difficulty with memory and recall, and that he has stopped taking his medication (Eloquis) due to adverse side-effects.

As a result of his heart condition, he testified the business has suffered, with revenues declining year over year since 2014. The husband told the court that he has a "tough time getting motivated and maintaining his focus." He could not even complete his annual inspection tours in 2016. The husband no longer plays ice hockey, however, he admitted that he did travel to Japan in January of this year for a week-long ski trip, and that he participated in a sail from Newport to Bermuda in June of 2016.

At some point in 2015, the husband invested in a CrossFit Gym along with one Patricia Cleary, with whom he had an affair prior to the decree of dissolution. He denies that the relationship continued after 2014, and he told the court that the current arrangement is "strictly business." In addition, he testified that he made that investment, in hopes of offsetting the reduction in his income from his primary job. According to his testimony, he alone has invested thousands of dollars in gym, which has never shown a profit. The business was sold at a loss in January 2017. He received $60,000.00 from sale, from which he paid his mother $20,000.00. (Exhibit # 26.) in February 2017, but failed to pay his lump sum installment due to his former wife.

The court heard the testimony of Kimberly Pereira, who has been the business manager of RPTC for fourteen years. She testified at some length that lately the husband has become forgetful and has "lost focus." For instance, she told the court that he lacks follow-through and has trouble making bids and putting together contracts, something that he had done routinely for years. Pereira said that he gets easily distracted and is "on" only about 75% of the time. He finds it hard to make decisions and the business has lost jobs in part for this reason, and in part because he is not making the necessary personal connections with existing and potential customers. She also testified that she has to help him put together his so-called "tours" which involves visiting and assessing literally hundreds of courts over a relatively short period of time. He is only in the office about one day a month and all communication has to go through her. In the past, she would see him one to two days per week at the office. A recent tour covered 40 sites. It is exhausting and stressful for her, and no doubt problematic for him as well. Most important, she told the court that the problems all began following his heart surgery. As a result, they have lost long-time good customers like Woodway Country Club in Darien and the Stamford Yacht Club. The witness estimated that business was off by 20%. The court found her to be a very credible witness.

The wife is 55 years old, and up to the end of 2017, was ostensibly in good health. At that time, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and has undergone surgery, as well as a course of chemo and radiation. She has also been prescribed antidepressants. The wife is a full-time homemaker, and she has no income from employment, with the exception of a few hundred dollars she received as a stop-gap caregiver for her twin sister, who is home-bound and disabled as a result of a brain tumor. She is passionate about her role as wife of their three daughters, and she is understandably anxious and stressed about the arbitrary reduction in her alimony payment, coupled with her diagnosis.

In January 2016, the husband unilaterally reduced his alimony payment to $10,000.00 per month. In addition, he has failed to make any lump sum property installments beginning with the payment due December 1, 2015. Through counsel, the husband seeks a modification of the financial orders based on his reduced income. He asks that any orders be based upon a percentage of his net income after self-employment taxes are deducted, as opposed to a flat monthly amount. He also seeks for retroactivity back to April 1, 2016, and that there be a cap of $600,000.00 on the income to be taken into account in setting alimony. The husband has also requested some relief regarding his payment of the lump sum property obligation.

For her part, the wife has moved for contempt due to the husband’s failure to comply with his financial obligations under the various terms of the Agreement, including his failure to pay his alimony obligation in full, his failure to make his installment payments of the property distribution, and well as his failure to fully reimburse the wife for his share of the medical and extra-curricular expenses for the children. The wife also seeks the payment of her reasonable counsel fees per Article 12.3 of the Agreement. She rejects the notion that the husband’s current situation is the result of a medical catastrophe that prevents his working to his full capacity.

The parties also agreed to equally share the cost of extra-curricular activities, as defined by the Agreement, and unreimbursed medical expenses for the children per Articles 7.2 and 10.2 respectively. The wife introduced Exhibits # 31 through # 34 containing expenses for both unreimbursed medical expenses for the children and extracurricular activities during the years 2014 through 2016. As to the children’s extracurricular activities, first and foremost, the Agreement states quite clearly that such expenses must be "agreed upon." Moreover, they are to be submitted to the other party within 60 days of incurrence, "absent extenuating circumstances." In reviewing the exhibits, the court found a total of properly submitted expenses for the children’s activities in the amount of $6,231.00 of which the husband’s share is $3,115.50. There was, however, no evidence of extenuating circumstances, nor did there appear to be any consistent written prior approval of many activities. The court is, therefore, unable to find by clear and convincing evidence that the husband has willfully failed to obey the court order.

As to the unreimbursed medical expenses, the parties also agreed that "absent extenuating circumstances, a party’s failure to submit an expense to the other within the sixty-day window shall thereafter make the expense unreimbursable." In reviewing Exhibits # 31 through # 34 it became clear to the court that many, if not most, were submitted outside of the 60-day window, albeit some by a small margin. Moreover, there was no showing by the wife of any extenuating circumstances. The court found a total of properly submitted medical expenses totaling $758.42 of which the husband’s share is $379.21. The court is, therefore,...