Pencheva-Hasse v. Hasse

221 Conn.App. 113

300 A.3d 1175

Nadezhda PENCHEVA-HASSE v. Michael HASSE

AC 45268

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 6, 2023

Officially Released August 15, 2023

Michael Hasse, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

Elgo, Suarez and Seeley, Js.

SUAREZ, J.

The defendant, Michael Hasse, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Nadezhda Pencheva-Hasse. ¹ On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly applied the child support guidelines, (2) abused its discretion in adopting the guardian ad litem's custody recommendations, and (3) abused its discretion in its property distribution orders. ² We affirm the judgment of the court.

The following facts, as found by the court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The parties were married on December 4, 2009, in Key West, Florida. They are the parents of one minor child. On February 13, 2020, the plaintiff commenced this dissolution action with a return date of March 17, 2020. In her complaint, the plaintiff sought, inter alia, a dissolution of marriage, joint legal custody of their child, child support, alimony, and a division of property. On May 4, 2021, the court, Shluger, J. , commenced a trial that continued over four nonconsecutive days. On December 17, 2021, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it made findings of facts and issued orders dissolving the marriage.

In its memorandum of decision, the court found that, at the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was twenty-four years old and a citizen of Bulgaria with few assets.

The plaintiff came to the United States on a temporary visa and rented a room with other Bulgarian citizens in a home owned by the defendant. She began working at the law office of the defendant, and, while she was not paid a salary, she was given bonuses whenever he completed a successful case. In 2012, she was put on the payroll at a rate of $300 per week. At the time of trial, the plaintiff was working at Home Depot earning $448 per week gross and $366 per week net.

The court found that, at the time of trial, the plaintiff had the following assets. She had accounts in Bulgaria totaling $12,000, a Liberty Bank account totaling $7000, a Navy Federal Credit Union account totaling $57,000, and a PayPal account with a balance of $500. She also owned a property in Bulgaria valued at $12,000 without a mortgage.

The court found the defendant to be fifty-one years old at the time of marriage and a prominent attorney. He was the sole proprietor of a busy criminal and personal injury law practice and served as appointed counsel in the federal court system. He maintained a law practice in New London and Puerto Rico. The court further found that the defendant "claim[ed] to earn only $612 per week as gross income from what appears to be a thriving legal practice. His April 30, 2021 financial affidavit showed that he earned $1730 per week in profits. Curiously, the [defendant] showed gross receipts on his tax return for 2017 of $537,000, gross receipts for 2018 of $441,000, and gross receipts for 2019 as $410,000. According to his tax returns, he never had ‘profit’ in excess of $36,000 per year." The court did not find the defendant's financial disclosures credible and specifically found that he "understat[ed] his income." The court noted that "[i]t strains the credulity of the court that this experienced and capable trial attorney earns no income and is, in fact, working at a loss. And, while earning no income, he spends $115 per week for his son's activities, $152 per week for his child's camps, $326 per week for his child's private school, and $50 per week for his child's allowance or, [in total], $643 per week ($33,436 per year)."

As additional assets, the court found that, prior to the marriage, the defendant owned numerous parcels of real estate. He owned a three-family home in Mystic, three condominiums in Puerto Rico, a condominium in Bulgaria, and two office condominiums in New London. The court found the value of the real estate to be approximately $1.4 million but that the properties were encumbered with mortgages of "an undisclosed amount." At the time of judgment, there was a marital residence, which was purchased after the marriage, located in Mystic with a value of $325,000 and without a mortgage.

The court further found that, just prior to, and during the pendency of, the litigation, the defendant withdrew large sums of money from his bank accounts. Just prior to the commencement of the dissolution action, the court also found that the defendant had a bank account with the Navy Federal Credit Union with a balance of $496,000, and, at the time of trial, the balance in the account was $250,000. The court further found that, at the commencement of the litigation, the defendant had a bank account at Chelsea Groton Bank with an approximate balance of $102,000, and, as of June 15, 2021, the account balance was approximately $35,000. In addition to the Navy Federal Credit Union and the Chelsea Groton Bank accounts, the court found that the defendant had a Liberty Bank account totaling $2000, a retirement account at the Navy Federal Credit Union totaling $65,000, a life insurance policy valued at $3000, and a Voya stock account valued at $3000. The court found that the defendant failed to adequately explain "how he had used, spent, or dissipated" these funds. The court concluded that the defendant had "violated the automatic orders ³ by withdrawing vast sums of money from his bank accounts ...." (Footnote added.)

The court further found that, although the defendant had had numerous orthopedic surgeries and suffered pain from increased activity, at the time of trial he was in good health and was still able to work full-time and to manage his real estate investments here and abroad.

At trial, the plaintiff argued and urged the court to find that the defendant had a much greater earning capacity than what he was reporting as his actual income. She argued that the court should simply compare his stated income and expenses to the several years of bank records and tax returns that were submitted as exhibits. The court, however, declined to conduct what it claimed to be a forensic audit without testimony from an expert witness skilled in such matters.

The court found, however, that, "utilizing [his] stated gross [income of] $612 and the [plaintiff's] stated gross income of $448 per week, the presumptive child support would be $128 per week from the [defendant] or $94 per week from the [plaintiff]. The court further found that "applying this figure would be inequitable and inappropriate because [the parties would] be enjoying a shared parenting schedule and because the court [found] the [defendant's] figures to be highly suspect and unreliable."

The court made the following relevant findings regarding the child. The child attended private school and was a good student. The plaintiff and the defendant supported the child in a plethora of interests including hockey, baseball, piano, guitar, and the arts. The parties were good, loving parents to the child and were both highly bonded with him. Prior to the dissolution of the marriage, "[t]he child [did] very well without either parent having more time than the other or [either parent] having final decision-making authority." The defendant was heavily involved with the child's extracurriculars and coached the child's hockey team. The defendant's relationship with the child was more of a peer, while the plaintiff had established a more structured parent-child relationship. The court found her to be more likely to ensure that the child focused on his schoolwork.

The guardian ad litem recommended that it was in the child's best interest that the court order a shared parenting plan in which the child would spend equal time living with each party. The guardian ad litem recommended that in week one the plaintiff would have the child from Sunday at 9 a.m. until Wednesday at 9 a.m., and in week two, the plaintiff would have the child from Thursday at 9 a.m. until Sunday at 9 a.m.

In its December 17, 2021 memorandum of decision, after stating that it "fully considered" the criteria of General Statutes (Rev. to 2021) § 46b-56 ⁴ and General Statutes §§ 46b-56c, 46b-62, 46b-81, 46b-82 and 46b-84, "the [applicable rules of practice] as well as the evidence, applicable case law, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and arguments of counsel" and setting forth the relevant law, the court issued the following relevant orders. It ordered that the parties share joint legal and physical custody of the child and ordered that, in week one, the plaintiff "shall have the child from Sunday at 9 a.m. until Wednesday at 9 a.m. and the [defendant] shall have the child from Wednesday at 9 a.m. until Sunday at 9 a.m." In week two, the court ordered that the plaintiff "shall have the child from Sunday at 9 a.m. until Thursday at 9 a.m. and the [defendant] shall have the child from Thursday at 9 a.m. until Sunday at 9 a.m." The court further ordered that "the parents shall share the summertime with the child in two week blocks to permit [the child's] trips to Bulgaria with the [plaintiff] ... or frequent hockey camps with the [defendant]." In the event of a conflict with the summer vacations, the court ordered that "the [plaintiff's] schedule shall take priority in odd years and the [defendant's] schedule shall take priority in even years." The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $70 per week in child support and the parties to divide any unreimbursed medical, optical, ophthalmological, psychological, orthodontic, dental, or work-related day care costs equally.

The court ordered that the defendant quit claim all of his rights, title, and interest in the marital residence to the plaintiff, who was to be solely responsible for all the expenses associated with the home. Addi...