Sheri Marzaro v. Sebastiano G. Marzaro

Fairfield, Connecticut, family law lawyers represented wife and husband in a divorce.



In 1999 or 2000, the parties moved to a house in Easton, Connecticut (marital residence), where the defendant continues to reside. The defendant's primary occupation during the marriage was selling shoes and leather goods imported from Italy. His income varied significantly, as he earned $500,000 in some years and $0 in others. In 2017, the defendant opened a restaurant, called Bigoi Venezia, in New York City. The restaurant is owned by Italmood, Inc., a company created by the defendant approximately twenty years ago. The plaintiff has not been employed full-time for decades. During the marriage, she served as the primary caregiver to the parties' children, and, in the past, she worked as a translator.



During the course of the marriage, the parties acquired several properties in addition to the marital residence-pistachio farmland in California, a home in Greece, and land in Italy. The parties sold the home in Greece around 2019 for approximately 240,000 euros and, with the defendant's knowledge, the plaintiff invested the proceeds with a property developer in Greece. The defendant sold a portion of the pistachio farmland in 2022 and split the proceeds with a friend, with whom he claimed he had an informal partnership. The defendant received approximately $247,000 from that sale and deposited it into his Italmood, Inc., bank account.



The plaintiff left the marital residence around 2014 and did not return. She moved to Europe, first living in Greece, then Italy, and finally France. The plaintiff did not tell the defendant that she was not returning and, despite the passage of several years, the defendant was not aware that the plaintiff had left him. At the time of the dissolution judgment, the plaintiff lived in a small apartment in Paris and was financially supported by her father.



On November 19, 2019, the plaintiff commenced the present dissolution action against the defendant on the ground that the parties' marriage had broken down irretrievably. Following a trial, on March 13, 2023, the court, M. Moore, J., issued a memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage. The court found that the breakdown of the marriage was attributable to both parties.[2] In its financial orders, the court ordered the defendant to pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $1 per week ''until the first to occur of the following events: the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage or cohabitation pursuant to statute and case law.'' In its property distribution, the court distributed the marital assets and debts as follows. The court ordered the parties to sell the marital residence and to divide the net proceeds of the sale 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant. The court ordered the defendant to transfer to the plaintiff $75,000 from a Chase bank account, which represented approximately 60 percent of the balance of that account. The court further ordered that the plaintiff retain the proceeds from the sale of the home in Greece; the land in Italy remains in both parties' names and, in the event that the parties sell it, each party would receive 50 percent of the equity; and the land in California is to be sold, with the parties to split the proceeds equally. The court awarded the defendant sole interest in the restaurant Bigoi Venezia as well as the company Italmood, Inc., which owns Bigoi Venezia.



* * *



Legal issue Is the marital residence held in a family trust subject to equitable distribution in a marriage dissolution when the trust is revocable and the parties are both trustees and beneficiaries during their lifetimes?



Key Phrases Marital residence equitable distribution. Marzaro Family Trust revocability. Party's interest in trust. Court's financial orders. Revocation of trust.

The court ordered each party to be responsible for the debts and liabilities listed on their respective financial affidavits, with the exception of all tax liabilities and the balance on a Nordstrom credit card, for which the defendant was solely responsible. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.



Affirmed on appeal.