Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Margelony v. Margelony

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

March 3, 2017

Katherine Margelony
v.
Craig Margelony

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

          Robert Nastri, Jr., Judge.

         This 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).

         The 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.

         Statutory Basis

         General 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."

         Findings of Fact

         The 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).

         The court has reviewed all exhibits and given them appropriate weight.

         The 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.

         The court unseals all financial affidavits and takes judicial notice of all pleadings in the court's file.

         All statutory stays have expired and the court is free to enter a judgment of dissolution.

         The allegations of the complaint are proven and true.

         The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably.

         Neither party is more at fault for the failure of their marriage than is the other.

         The plaintiff, Katherine Margelony, and the defendant, Craig Margelony, were married on September 27, 2014 in New Britain, Connecticut.

         The plaintiff resided in Connecticut for more than one year before she filed the complaint.

         The marriage produced two minor children: Jazlyn Margelony, born November 25, 2012 and Rhyan Margelony, born March 8, 2016.

         The plaintiff and the two minor children have health insurance through the State of Connecticut Husky insurance plan.

         The plaintiff was born on March 24, 1989. She is twenty-seven years old and in good health. She is not pregnant.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         The defendant is thirty-five years old. He was born on April 19, 1981 and is in good health.

         The defendant spent two years at Daytona Beach University studying business administration.

         The 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.

         The 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, F.S.M.).

         The 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.

         The defendant was sentenced to the care and custody of the Commissioner of Correction for a period of twelve months for violating § 53a-61a[1] and for a period of eighteen months for violating § 53a-64bb.

         On July 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 ...


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.