Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ekis v. Laura

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

November 9, 2015

Alejandro M. Ekis
Paula S. Laura


José A. Suarez, J.

On January 5, 2015, the plaintiff, Alejandro Ekis, filed this action for dissolution of marriage with a return date of March 17, 2015. The matter was served on the defendant, Maria Vargas, on February 19, 2015. A contested hearing was held before the court on October 7, 2015. The court has considered carefully all of the evidence, the respective criteria for orders of alimony, custody, child support, health insurance, property settlement, division of debt, and award of counsel fees. The court makes the following findings of facts and orders.


The parties were married on January 20, 2002, in Saddle Brook, New Jersey. The parties have resided in Connecticut for more than one year prior to the commencement of this action. The court has jurisdiction over the marriage. All statutory stays have expired. There are two minor children born to the parties since the date of the marriage: Thomas R. Ekis, date of birth May 28, 2002, and Andrea Ekis, date of birth September 15, 2004. The marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

The plaintiff is thirty-six years old. He finished high school in Puerto Rico and moved to Connecticut in 1998. He worked at Discount Trophy for approximately 11 to 12 years, but was fired from that job. He was earning $769 per week. He then worked as a warehouse supervisor earning $15 per hour, but was also fired. Currently, he is employed at Future Technologies as a cable installer. He earns $360 gross per week. His net weekly income is $202. He has $243 in total weekly expenses. The plaintiff shows on his financial affidavit a total of $12, 876 in liabilities. He does not show any bank accounts or retirement accounts on his financial affidavit. He does not have any other assets.

The defendant is thirty-nine years old. She works for Bank of America and earns $716 gross per week. Her net weekly income is $635. She shows a total of $665 per week in expenses and a total of $12, 323 in liabilities. She has three Bank of America savings and checking accounts with a combined balance of $747. She has a 401k account with Merrill Lynch with a current balance of $68, 312; and a pension with Merrill Lynch with a current value of $19, 043. The defendant's other assets include the marital home and a 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee with an approximate value of $3, 800.

The marital home is located at 156 Chestnut Street, Manchester, CT. The defendant purchased the home with her mother in 2004. The fair market value of the home is $130, 000 and it has a mortgage of $128, 000. During the course of the marriage, the plaintiff contributed $400 per month towards the mortgage. In 2011, the plaintiff stopped contributing to the mortgage payment and the bank filed a foreclosure action. The defendant successfully mediated the foreclosure and saved the home.

In August 2011, the plaintiff left the marital home as the parties were arguing a lot. The source of the disagreement was that the plaintiff was drinking too much and always wanted to hang out with his friends. He would drink during the week nights and miss work the next day. As a result, he lost his employment. The defendant felt that she was doing everything for the family. She worked, sometimes two jobs, to support the family and also addressed the children's education, and social needs.

On August 14, 2011, the plaintiff was intoxicated and a domestic dispute occurred between the parties in the marital home. The Manchester Police Department was called and the plaintiff was arrested. On August 15, 2011, a partial protective order was issued ordering the plaintiff not to assault, threaten, abuse, harass, follow, interfere with or stalk the defendant. The partial protective order did not include the children as respondents.

Since the parties' separation, the plaintiff has not been a consistent parent in the children's lives. The oldest child was receiving special services in school; however, the plaintiff has not participated in the parent/teacher conferences to address the child's needs. Likewise, he has not been consistent with visitation. The last time the plaintiff had an overnight visit with the children was over two months ago. He has enjoyed sporadic visitation at best.

The children are currently insured through Husky. There is an open Support Enforcement case at the Rockville Superior Court, Docket # TTD-FA12-4016676-S.


Dissolution of Marriage

A decree dissolving the marriage, on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, shall enter. The parties are ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.