Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Nastri, Jr., Judge.
action for dissolution of marriage was brought by writ of
summons and complaint dated August 17, 2016, with a return
date of September 20, 2016. The defendant filed an answer on
December 12, 2016 (#103).
court heard the testimony of the parties on February 17,
2017. Each party testified at great length. The defendant
introduced two exhibits; the plaintiff introduced one
exhibit. The parties were self-represented.
Statutes § 46b-81(c) provides the statutory framework
for equitable distribution of property. It provides, in
relevant part: " In fixing the nature and value of the
property, if any, to be assigned, the court . . . shall
consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the . . .
dissolution . . . the age, health, station, occupation,
amount and sources of income, earning capacity, vocational
skills, education, employability, estate, liabilities and
needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for
future acquisition of capital assets and income. The court
shall also consider the contribution of each of the parties
to the acquisition, preservation, or appreciation in value of
their respective estates."
court finds all facts by a preponderance of the evidence
presented. The court has listened carefully to the witnesses
and assessed their credibility. " It is the sole
province of the trial court to weigh and interpret the
evidence before it and to pass on the credibility of the
witnesses . . . It has the advantage of viewing and
assessing the demeanor, attitude and credibility of the
witnesses and is therefore better equipped . . . to assess
the circumstances surrounding the dissolution action."
(Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Zahringer v. Zahringer, 124 Conn.App. 672, 679-80, 6
A.3d 141 (2010).
court has reviewed all exhibits and given them appropriate
court has applied all relevant law including, but not limited
to, that law found in General Statutes § § 46b-56,
46b-56(c), 46b-62, 46b-81, 46b-82, 46b-84, 46b-86 and 46b-87.
court unseals all financial affidavits and takes judicial
notice of all pleadings in the court's file.
statutory stays have expired and the court is free to enter a
judgment of dissolution.
allegations of the complaint are proven and true.
marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably.
party is more at fault for the failure of their marriage than
is the other.
plaintiff, Katherine Margelony, and the defendant, Craig
Margelony, were married on September 27, 2014 in New Britain,
plaintiff resided in Connecticut for more than one year
before she filed the complaint.
marriage produced two minor children: Jazlyn Margelony, born
November 25, 2012 and Rhyan Margelony, born March 8, 2016.
plaintiff and the two minor children have health insurance
through the State of Connecticut Husky insurance plan.
plaintiff was born on March 24, 1989. She is twenty-seven
years old and in good health. She is not pregnant.
plaintiff has one and one-half years of post-secondary
education at Capital Community College, where she majored in
general studies. She has worked at Solinsky Eye Care as a
medical scribe for about four years.
plaintiff works thirty to thirty-five hours per week, earning
17 dollars per hour. She has an average gross income of $561
per week and average net income of $536 per week.
defendant is thirty-five years old. He was born on April 19,
1981 and is in good health.
defendant spent two years at Daytona Beach University
studying business administration.
defendant has two minor children from a previous marriage:
John Margelony, born November 2, 2004 and Juliana Margelony,
born May 18, 2007. The defendant had custody of John and
Juliana during his relationship with the plaintiff. Both
children from the defendant's previous marriage lived
with their father and the plaintiff.
defendant is obligated to pay child support for John and
Juliana in the amount of $114 per week. Margelony v.
Margelony, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland,
Docket No. FA-16-4022650-S (September 13, 2016, Gilman,
defendant is currently incarcerated. He entered a guilty plea
under the Alford doctrine to violations of General
Statutes § § 53a-61 and 53a-64bb. The plaintiff was
the victim in both cases.
defendant was sentenced to the care and custody of the
Commissioner of Correction for a period of twelve months for
violating § 53a-61a and for a period of eighteen months
for violating § 53a-64bb.
8, 2016, the court, Oliver, J., issued a Standing Criminal
Protective Order against the defendant. The plaintiff is the
protected party. The protective order remains in place until
April 9, 2081 and provides, inter alia, that "
This order extends to the protected person's minor
children unless a family court orders visitation. If
visitation is order[ed] it must be ...