Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

FRANK MARMO v. PEGGY MARMO (AC 31894)
Bishop, Lavine and Robinson, Js. Argued May 23--officially released August 30, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Hon. Sandra Vilardi Leheny, judge trial referee.) Helen Allen, with whom, on the brief, was Dyan Kozaczka, for the appellant (defendant). Christopher G. Winans, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

LAVINE, J. The defendant, Peggy Marmo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Frank Marmo. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) awarded her time limited alimony and (2) entered an order regarding the sale of the marital home that contradicts other orders of the court.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. In its June 16, 2009 memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage, the court made the following findings that are relevant to the issue on appeal. The parties were married on August 8, 1992, and all four of their children were born on November 9, 1995. At the time of dissolution, the plaintiff had been employed as a special agent by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since 1995 and the defendant was employed by the Newtown board of education. As a result of the plaintiff's advancement in his employment, the parties have moved several times from Connecticut to Virginia to the New York City area and back to Connecticut. During one fourteen month period, the plaintiff commuted between his assignment in Washington, D.C., and the parties' home in Connecticut on weekends. The court found that differences between the parties arose early in their marriage. After the birth of the quadruplets, the plaintiff became ``stressed out'' by the responsibilities of work and family. In January, 1997, the plaintiff, ``like a gentleman,'' talked to the defendant about his problems and told her that he thought his health was being impaired. The defendant ignored him and stated ``all you are to me is a paycheck.'' The plaintiff left home for three days but returned because of the children. Moreover, the court found that, in addition to the differences in their personalities, the parties have encountered financial and emotional stresses that have strained the marriage. The court dissolved the marriage of the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. Pursuant to the court's orders, the parties have joint legal custody of their children until the children graduate from high school or they attain the age of eighteen, whichever occurs later.2 The defendant has primary physical custody of the children, and the plaintiff has reasonable and flexible visitation with them. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant child support until their children reach the age of eighteen or graduate from high school, whichever occurs later. The plaintiff also was ordered to obtain life insurance, naming the defendant and the children equal beneficiaries as long as he has an obligation to provide financial support to them. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant $825 weekly in periodic alimony until June 1, 2013. The parties own two pieces of real property in Newtown.3 The court ordered the parties to sell the property

at Boulder Creek immediately and share in the profit or loss from the sale. The parties are to continue to own jointly the marital residence at Valley Field Road North, where the defendant and children will reside until the property is sold or three months after the children reach the age of eighteen or graduate from high school, whichever occurs later. The defendant was ordered to pay the ordinary and necessary expenses of the household. After the court rendered judgment, the defendant filed a motion for articulation, pursuant to Practice Book

Download Marmo v. Marmo.pdf

Connecticut Law