Dumbauld v. Dumbauld

Marea A. Dumbauld v. Theodore E. Dumbauld

No. FSTFA124023268S

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

March 11, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

SYBIL V. RICHARDS, JUDGE.

The matter before the court is a dissolution of marriage action filed by the plaintiff wife, whose birth name is Marea Armenti, against the defendant husband. The parties were intermarried on May 16, 1992 in Frelinghuysen, New Jersey. The plaintiff has been a resident of the state of Connecticut for more than 12 months prior to the filing of the complaint in which she alleged that the parties' marriage has broken down irretrievably. There are four children who are the issue of the parties' marriage, to wit: Cassidy Marie Dumbauld, born on April 20, 1993, Carly Jordan Dumbauld, born on July 12, 1994, Theodore Eugene Dumbauld, Jr., born on May 23, 1996, and George Thomas Dumbauld, born on October 26 2000. Neither party has been the recipient of any state or municipal assistance. The court finds that it has jurisdiction to preside over this matter. The instant action was tried to the court over the course of 7 non-consecutive days commencing on July 16, 2015 and ending on November 12 2015 at which the court heard testimony and admitted exhibits into evidence. From the relevant and credible evidence presented at the dissolution trial, the court makes the following findings of fact and such other factual findings as it may deem appropriate.

The plaintiff is a 49-year-old unemployed homemaker and testified that her health is " good." Before the parties were wedded, the plaintiff managed a boutique and held a job at a radio station in its promotions department between 1984 and 1985.^[1] Then, the plaintiff earned $25, 000 as an employee at Stargate Productions, an animation company for a little over one year. The plaintiff's next job was with Michael Huss Productions as a director and she earned $28, 000 for one year. Later, the plaintiff opened a business called Mama Little, which involved the sale of breast pumps but she later shut it down because it was unsuccessful. In 2009, the plaintiff and a partner founded Bella Tu which is a company that designs tops, tunics and dresses and sells them by way of trade shows and clothing boutiques. Each partner invested $50, 000 into the business when it was formed. The plaintiff's share of her investment in Bella Tu was derived from her grandparents, who left her an inheritance. According to the plaintiff's testimony, Bella Tu never turned a profit. By January of 2014, her interest in Bella Tu was reduced from 50% to 20%. Currently, her hours at Bella Tu vary from 4 to 15 hours per week, which is down from as much as 50 hours a week in the past. In terms of her educational background, the plaintiff is a high school graduate. She attended Stockton State College from 1982 to 1983 and studied communications and then attended Monte Claire State College from 1983 to 1984. She took classes intermittently at Seton Hall University in the summer and fall of 1985 and took two classes in psychology and communications at UCLA around 1988. The plaintiff also took classes in computers and math sometime between 1996 and 2000, but she never earned a college degree. With respect to the defendant, he testified that he is 56 years old^[2] and described his health as " very good." In 1981, the defendant graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with a major in systems engineering. In 1983, he obtained a master's degree in science from MIT's Sloan School of Management. For more than six years, the defendant served as a submarine officer in the U.S. Navy. As far as the defendant's work history is concerned, the defendant testified that he started in the world of finance. The defendant worked for Security Pacific Bank from 1987 to 1989 as an assistant vice president in its derivatives department. From 1989 until 1994, the defendant worked for Bear Stearns initially as a vice president and later became a managing director of its fixed derivatives department. The defendant's most lucrative employment was when he worked for Access International Advisors, LLC, from which he received a total of approximately $4, 000, 000 from a combination of his deferred compensation withdrawal and a negotiated payout that was payable from 2007 through 2013 after he separated from service in 2006. The defendant started working for Simulyze, which he formed on November 5, 2012, as its vice president for business development before becoming its chief executive officer after first investing in it. Simulyze is a company that developed battlefield management software, which was sold mainly to the U.S. Department of Defense and paid the defendant an annual salary of $252, 000. By the time the defendant's employment with Simulyze ended, Simulyze owed the defendant $90, 411.21 in unpaid travel expenses. On February 4, 2015, the defendant was hired by Curaleaf, LLC, a medical marijuana producer located in this state. His base salary at Curaleaf, LLC is $120, 000 per year. The defendant received a bonus of $50, 000, which he took in Curaleaf, LLC stock instead of cash after being employed with the company for six months. By the end of the dissolution trial, the defendant testified that Curaleaf, LLC also owed him $10, 000 for unreimbursed travel expenses to date.^[3]

After the parties married, problems in their relationship surfaced at some point. According to the plaintiff, she alleged that there were incidents of domestic violence that began when the children were young and attested to multiple incidents. She further testified that the defendant engaged in extramarital affairs. The court is not persuaded by her testimony relating to these claims, which the defendant denied.

During the defendant's testimony, he claimed that the plaintiff had an explosive temper and that she physically assaulted him on a number of occasions around the latter part of the parties' relationship. However, the parties' efforts to save their marriage through counseling and jointly attending activities such as yoga were not enough to keep their marriage intact. The court credits the defendant's testimony in this regard, but the court concludes that the ultimate cause of the demise of the parties' marriage was irretrievable breakdown.

In rendering its decision and fashioning the following orders, the court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in General Statutes § 46b-56c as to educational support orders, § 46b-66a as to the conveyance of real property, § § 46b-81 and 82 relating to the assignment of the marital estate and alimony, § 46b-82 regarding attorneys fees and § 46b-56 regarding child support and the Child Support Guidelines' criteria set forth in Regs., Connecticut State Agencies § 46b-215a-1 et seq. The court has also considered the parties' claims for relief and proposed orders, examined the full exhibits and reviewed the relevant and credible evidence presented, observed the demeanor of the parties during the dissolution trial and applied the relevant case law relating to the facts and issues presented at trial. In consideration of the foregoing, the court issues the following orders.

Orders[⁴]

1. Dissolution of Marriage

The marriage of the parties, having broken down irretrievably, is hereby dissolved as of the date of the judgment of dissolution. The court further declares that the parties are single and unmarried as of the date of the judgment of dissolution.

2. Alimony

The defendant shall pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of forty-five percent (45%) of all of his " gross income" per month on or before the first day of each month until the earliest of the plaintiff's death, the defendant's death, the plaintiff's remarriage or existence of circumstances under General Statutes § 46b-86(b) warranting modification, suspension or termination of alimony or eight (8) years from the date of the judgment of dissolution. " Gross income" shall be defined as payments received by the defendant, in cash, stock or any other form of remuneration, passive or otherwise, for any reason on account of his employment, self employment and earnings from any entity he formed or was instrumental in forming or has an interest in regardless of the type or description or kind. By way of illustration, and not by way of limitation, the term " gross income" shall include distributions, dividends, salaries, bonuses, finder's fees, commissions, consulting fees, director's fees, commissions for arrangements of any transactions or any other payment made to the defendant on account of his employment, self-employment or earnings as described above. " Gross income" shall exclude all reasonable, necessary and allowable business expenses permitted in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code. Each year, the defendant shall provide the plaintiff with a copy of his federal and state individual and business tax returns, including the K-1 and all schedules and supporting documentation attendant thereto as well as any related extensions within one (1) calendar month of the date of filing for as long as the defendant has an alimony obligation to the plaintiff. Alimony payments are taxable to the plaintiff and deductible by the defendant. Alimony is modifiable as to amount but not the term. No alimony is awarded to the defendant.

3. Child Support

The court rejects the child support guidelines submitted by the parties and prepared its own child support guidelines worksheet calculations, which reflect a gross and net weekly income of $0 for the plaintiff, respectively, and a gross and net weekly income of $3, 269 and 2, 190, respectively, for the defendant based upon his annual base salary of $120, 000 from his current employer, Curaleaf, LLC,...