SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

MARICOPA COUNTY

FN 2004-001091 12/01/2004

CLERK OF THE COURT

HONORABLE PETER SWANN D. Kenney
Deputy

FILED: 12/06/2004
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
THOMAS PAUL MORRISSEY ROBERT F HARRIAN

AND

CHARLETTE MORRISSEY CHARLETTE MORRISSEY

2336 W DARREL RD
PHOENIX AZ 85041-6412

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered the evidence presented at Trial and enters the following
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and orders.

During the course of the Trial the parties reached the following agreements, which shall
form a part of the final Decree:

1. Debts shall be allocated as set forth in paragraph 2, page 5 of the pretrial

statement submitted on November 2, 2004.

2. Husband shall retain the leased Honda Civic, and shall be responsible for all lease
payments thereon.

3. The Thomas J. Morrissey property shall be awarded to Husband as his sole and
separate property without equalization. The parties note that Wife has no liability for
any debt associated with the property, and Husband shall indemnify and hold her
harmless from any liability connected with the Thomas J. Morrissey property that
may arise in the future.

Docket Code 019 Form D000C Page 1

 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

FN 2004-001091 12/01/2004

4. By Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the parties shall document the equal
division of the community portion of Husband’s Arizona State Retirement System
benefits, using April 2004 as the date of termination of the community interest.

5. Each party shall be awarded as their sole and separate property, the personal property
in their current possession.

6. Husband has waived all interest in Wife’s retirement account, and Wife has waived
all interest in Husband’s federal pension benefits.

DISPUTED ISSUES:

Remaining for decision by the Court are the following issues:

1. Disposition of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence.

2. Allocation of the excess liability associated with the parties’ Nissan Altima.
3. Responsibility for costs of repairs and upgrades to the marital residence.
4. Spousal maintenance.
5. Wife’s request to be designated the surviving beneficiary in connection with
Husband’s federal retirement benefits.

THE COURT FINDS that after cost of sale, the net proceeds of the sale of the marital
residence equals approximately $5,000.00.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS no evidence to support Wife’s claim that the
community line of credit secured by a second mortgage on the marital residence was increased
after service of the petition such that she should be entitled to an offset. Rather, it appears that
all debt incurred in connection with the second mortgage was incurred before the service of the
petition and is therefore property attributed to the community in connection with the division of
the proceeds. Wife testified that she is almost certain to seek bankruptcy protection following
entry of the Decree. Were the Court to assign to both parties equal responsibility for the debt
associated with the Nissan Altima, the bankruptcy would render such a decision meaningless, as
Husband would ultimately bear full responsibility for that debt.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Husband be awarded the net proceeds of the sale of the marital
residence as his sole and separate property and that he be awarded the Nissan Altima as his sole
and separate property, subject to all liens and encumbrances thereon. The evidence reveals that
the vehicle has a fair market value of approximately $7,200.00 and is encumbered by debt of
approximately $12,000.00. The net $5,000.00 deficiency shall be the sole responsibility of
Husband.

Docket Code 019 Form D000C Page 2

 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

FN 2004-001091 12/01/2004

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this order, Wife
shall return the vehicle to Husband who shall then indemnify and hold Wife harmless from all
debt associated with the vehicle.

The parties disputed whether Wife should be required to reimburse Husband for
approximately $6,700.00, expended after service of the petition on repairs and upgrades to the
kitchen floor and front door of the residence to prepare it for sale.

THE COURT FINDS that earlier in the course of the marriage, Wife expended an
amount in excess of $6,700.00 from her sole and separate funds on improvements to the
residence. Though the evidence is insufficient to support a finding as to the precise amount that
Wife expended or the direct affect that Wife’s expenditures had on the ultimate value of the
residence at the time of sale,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ expenditures be offset and that Wife bear no
responsibility for the cost of the repairs on the residence.

With regard to spousal maintenance,

THE COURT FINDS that Wife contributed to Husband’s educational opportunities and
that she lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Wife is entitled to an award of spousal

maintenance.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Wife’s current annual income is $23,800.00 from
employment. The Court does not find that Wife is under-employed.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Wife receives additional income of $200.00 per
month from an inheritance and occasional contributions toward living expenses from her elderly
uncle, with whom she lives.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Husband is 67 years of age and expects to retire
from his position with the state of Arizona in the very near future. Upon his retirement, Wife
will receive an additional monthly benefit of approximately $460.00 per month pursuant to the
anticipated QDRO. Upon his retirement, Husband will have a gross income from Social
Security, his federal pension benefits and his state retirement, totaling approximately $5,500.00
per month.

After considering the evidence concerning the parties’ reasonable expenses, the disparity
in their ages and the duration of the marriage,

Docket Code 019 Form D000C Page 3

 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

FN 2004-001091 12/01/2004

IT IS ORDERED awarding Wife spousal maintenance in the amount of $450.00 per

month for three years, commencing December 2004, pursuant to A.R.S. §25-319(B).

The Court does not find that Wife’s work on the parties’ business venture, TT
Productions, is a significant factor in the award of spousal maintenance. Wife and Husband have
agreed that they shall share equal interest in the business and its assets following dissolution and
neither has received compensation from the business to date.

Though Wife has disclaimed any interest in Husband’s federal pension benefits (which
flow from Husband’s 20-year service with the United States Marshall Service, all but nine
months of which occurred before the marriage), she seeks to be designated a surviving
beneficiary in connection with that retirement plan. Until the present time, Husband has
maintained Wife as the surviving beneficiary at a cost of approximately $300.00 per month. As
the Court explained at Trial, it is aware of no legal authority that would allow it to force Husband
to designate Wife the beneficiary on his pension plan after dissolution. The value of the pension
plan has been awarded by agreement to Husband as his sole and separate property.

THE COURT FINDS that Husband is free to designate any person he chooses as his
surviving beneficiary, if he chooses to designate one at all.

Accordingly, Wife’s request in this regard is denied.

IT IS ORDERED that on or before December 15, 2004, counsel for Husband shall
prepare a form of final Decree, embodying the rulings contained herein and the other agreements
of the parties expressed in their joint pre-trial statement and submit the proposed Decree to Wife
for her review. On or before December 22, 2004, Wife shall either approve the Decree as to
form and so notify Husband’s counsel, or submit to the Court any objections to the form of the
Decree on that date.

All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
A form may be downloaded at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ssc/sschome.html.

Docket Code 019 Form D000C Page 4