Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: H. PATRICK LEIS
• Citation: Christopher C. v. Bonnie C., 2013 NY Slip Op 23210, 40 Misc.3d 859, 968 N.Y.S.2d 855 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)
• Decision Date: 26 June 2013
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER C., Plaintiff, v. BONNIE C., Defendant.

40 Misc.3d 859

968 N.Y.S.2d 855

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 23210

CHRISTOPHER C., Plaintiff,

v.BONNIE C., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York.

June 26, 2013.

Black & Black, Esqs., by Bronwyn M. Black, Esq., Melville, Guardian for Bonnie C.

Brettschneider & Brettschneider, by Joseph Brettschneider, Esq., Huntington, attorney for petitioner Christopher C.

Michael B. Schulman & Associates, P.C., by Michael B. Schulman, Esq., Melville, attorney for petitioner Christopher C.

Tabot, Cohen, Blum & Yovino, LLP, by Alita McKinnon, Esq., West Islip, attorney for defendant Bonnie C.

H. PATRICK LEIS, J.

This divorce action was transferred to the Model Integrated Guardianship Part by the undersigned in an order dated April 1, 2011.¹ The matrimonial case was commenced on January 27, 2009 by the plaintiff, Christopher C., against his wife, Bonnie C. During the course of that proceeding, after it became apparent that Mrs. C. was having difficulty processing issues and assisting her attorney, the judge suggested that an Article 81 Guardianship proceeding be initiated.² Thereafter,in February 2011, the defendant's brother Ronnie Atanasio filed an Article 81 petition seeking to be appointed as the guardian for his sister. On March 30, 2011, this Court conducted a guardianship hearing at which the defendant readily acknowledged her need for a guardian. The defendant stated that she had a history of depression, generalized anxiety and detoxification from pain medications. In addition, she explained that her anxiety and inability to function during periods of stress made it difficult for her to assist her matrimonial attorney and to weigh the relative merits of either negotiating a settlement or going to trial. After the hearing, the Court, with Mrs. C.'s consent,³ appointed the defendant's brother as her guardian. The guardian was given, inter alia, the power to participate in the divorce proceeding and to decide whether to negotiate a settlement or proceed to trial.

The parties have stipulated to a divorce based on constructive abandonment. The equitable distribution and maintenance portion of the case was tried before the undersigned on February 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2013. Mrs. C. was assisted during the trial by Bronwyn Black, her present guardian.⁴ The remaining portion of the defendant's motion (001) for counsel fees and the plaintiff's motion (002) requesting a suspension and repayment of temporary maintenance awarded prior to trial, and a redistribution of the interim counsel fees previously awarded, were referred to the trial of the action and will be decided herein. The defendant's and plaintiff's trial Memoranda of Law were received on March 7, 2013.

The evidence at trial establishes the following. The parties were married on October 19, 1990. The plaintiff is currently 51 years old and the defendant is currently 56 years old. In 1990, the plaintiff suffered a back injury from a fall. In 1996 he was found by the Department of Social Services to be permanently partially disabled (see Plaintiff's exhibit 57). He remained out of work from the time of his injury until 2000 when he became employed at L'egent International (defendant's brother's company) selling women's accessories. Since the time of his back injury, the plaintiff alleges he has lived in constant pain.

Mr. C. states that he does not recall what he earned during the first years of the marriage. He did, however, receive worker's compensation and social security disability for a period of time after his initial injury. The plaintiff states that he received a settlement from the accident of $133,000.00 which he alleges he used to fund the parties' joint brokerage account. The plaintiff stopped working for L'egent in 2008 and has not worked since.

The defendant also worked at L'egent International from 2000–2003. She eventually was promoted and ran all overseas operations including purchasing, shipments and tracking. According to joint tax returns submitted in evidence (see Plaintiff's exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4), the parties' income was:

+-----------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦Plaintiff      ¦Defendant     ¦
                +----+---------------+--------------¦
                ¦2000¦$ 139,127.00   ¦$753,328.00   ¦
                +----+---------------+--------------¦
                ¦2001¦$1,464,533.00  ¦$189,986.00   ¦
                +----+---------------+--------------¦
                ¦2002¦$1,220,244.00  ¦$343,750.00   ¦
                +----+---------------+--------------¦
                ¦2003¦$ 623,707.00   ¦$346,281.00   ¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                

According to individual tax returns submitted into evidence (see Plaintiff's exhibits5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14), the parties' income was:

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦Plaintiff                                 ¦Defendant     ¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2004  ¦$672,528.00                               ¦none submitted¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2005  ¦$1,015,050.00                             ¦$0            ¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2006  ¦$936,826.00                               ¦$0            ¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2007  ¦$445,439.00                               ¦none submitted¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2008  ¦$227,781.00                               ¦none submitted¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2009  ¦$26,345.00 ($19,000.00 unemployment       ¦none submitted¦          ¦
                ¦      ¦insurance)                                ¦              ¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2010  ¦$12,999.00 ($14,190.00 unemployment       ¦none submitted¦          ¦
                ¦      ¦insurance)                                ¦              ¦          ¦
                +------+------------------------------------------+--------------+----------¦
                ¦2011  ¦$15,977.00                                ¦none submitted¦          ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

The parties lived a lavish lifestyle from 2000 to 2003. Together they have owned financial investments worth over one million dollars, a 50% interest in a beach house on Dune Road in West Hampton Beach worth approximately $3,000,000.00, a 50% interest in a 48–foot Sea Ray boat purchased in 1999 for $635,000.00, and Rolex watches worth over $22,000.00. The plaintiff testified that his income dropped in August of 2008 when he stopped working for L'egent and became unemployed. Since that time, he has paid his living expenses by drawing on two home equity loans established in 2006 and 2007, one for $145,714.00 and the other for $129,377.00, respectively. He pays $1,400.00 per month for both loans. He also alleges that he has been withdrawing money from his brokerage account to pay his living expenses and the court-ordered pendente lite payments to the defendant.

The defendant apparently suffers from a variety of mental and emotional issues which her attorney and guardian argue have prevented her from presenting a cogent explanation for her past conduct. Although the defendant now vehemently denies any mental health issues, her conduct both on and off the witness stand would establish the contrary. Determining the full extent and nature of the defendant's mental and/or emotional problems is extremely difficult given the fact that she consented to the guardianship, thereby obviating the need for a determination on the issue of her incapacity.⁵ Also, there was no medical or expert testimony offered concerning the state of the defendant's mental health. Thus, the court is left to rely on its own observations of the defendant's bizarre behavior during the trial, the defendant's squandering of over one million dollars in assets from 2003 to the present, her demonstrated lack of impulse control, and her consent to have a guardian appointed for her property, to discern the level of impairment caused by her mental and emotional difficulties.

The court finds that the credible evidence establishes that the defendant has not worked since 2003 and is currently unable to do so due to her severe emotional and mental deficiencies. There is no evidence that the defendant has received any income or has filed any individual tax returns after 2006.⁶ At present, her only reliable source of income is social security disability which she claims is $742.00 per month. She testified that although she has received sporadic rental income in various amounts from a house she purchased in Lindenhurst, the home is currently in foreclosure. Her right to further rent is therefore unlikely. Mrs. C. also receives food stamps. While she appears to have a 50% ownership in a house in Quogue, no proof of its value or any rental income has been presented to the Court. The defendant alleges it is valueless and there has been no evidence submitted to the contrary. According to the defendant, she is not allowed by her brother (who owns the other 50% interest) to reside in the Quogue house and she claims to be homeless.

While the plaintiff has been able to retain two attorneys (each from separate law firms) during the course of this action, the defendant's attorney has only been paid $10,000.00 for several years worth of representation. Although the defendant's counsel holds a $22,000.00 judgement against the plaintiff for interim attorneys fees, the plaintiff has refused to pay any amount to the defendant's attorney.

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

The credible evidence establishes that the plaintiff and defendant stopped living together in January 2003. At that time, when there was no question as to the defendant's capacity, the parties went to an attorney for assistance in dividing their assets. According to Mr....