Beeney v. Beeney, No. 0548177 (Oct. 28, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14110
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedOctober 28, 1999
DocketNo. 0548177
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14110 (Beeney v. Beeney, No. 0548177 (Oct. 28, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beeney v. Beeney, No. 0548177 (Oct. 28, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14110 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This matter was first initiated incident to a summons and complaint dated September 21, 1998 and returnable October 13, 1998 in which complaint the plaintiff sought a dissolution of the marriage, custody of the one remaining minor child, an equitable distribution of the parties' property, both real and personal, temporary and permanent support, counsel fees, restoration of her maiden name of Janis P. LaCourse, and such other relief as the court felt would be proper.

A financial statement accompanied the complaint as well as preliminary motions.

The defendant appeared by counsel on October 9, 1998, and at that time, filed an answer to the complaint and a cross complaint, in which cross complaint the defendant sought a CT Page 14111 dissolution of the marital union, an order concerning custody of the minor child and an equitable division of all real and personal property.

A stipulation was executed by the parties bearing date of November 2, 1998 as concerns the one minor child, use of the marital home, child support and provision as to debts.

The defendant filed a financial affidavit on November 2, 1998.

On March 2, 1999 a motion to modify child support pendente lite and a motion to modify contribution to household expenses was filed by the defendant but the same does not appear to have been acted upon.

On October 15, 1999 the plaintiff and the defendant, with their respective attorneys and witnesses, appeared before the court and the matter was heard to a conclusion.

The Court makes the following findings of fact.

The plaintiff and the defendant were united in marriage on July 12, 1975 in Groton.

The plaintiffs maiden name was LaCourse.

Both parties have resided in the State of Connecticut for more than 12 months prior to the initiation of the petition.

The plaintiff and the defendant have at present one minor child issue of their marriage, Michelle Rene Beeney, born January 30, 1982. No other minor children have been born to the plaintiff wife since the date of the marriage.

Neither party has been the recipient of assistance from the State of Connecticut or any municipality or subdivision thereof

It appears that the marriage has irretrievably broken down with no reasonable prospect for reconciliation.

The testimony of the plaintiff indicates that the only common bond between the parties at this time are the children issue of this marriage. CT Page 14112

There has apparently been, of late, no effort to try and preserve the marital union.

The plaintiff at an earlier point sought counseling, tried to improve the problems in the marriage and attended as many as six to eight sessions incident thereto.

The plaintiff in September of 1998 left the marital home with the minor child Michelle Rene.

There are two other children issue of this union; Lisa Beeney, age 22, presently residing in Arizona and Scott Beeney, who at present, resides with the plaintiff.

The son Scott Beeney attends college.

The minor daughter Michelle will graduate from high school in June of 2000.

The plaintiff testified that she is not desirous of having her maiden restored nor is she seeking alimony from the court.

The plaintiff is age 42 and indicates that her health is good.

In July of this year the marriage is of 24 years duration.

The defendant has medical problems and difficulties, more particularly, the fact that he experiences seizures in the night, sometimes being afflicted with six or seven in one evening. These seizures have effected the defendant's health.

On occasion, the defendant has been unable to attend his regular work duties because of the problems attendant to the seizures.

On occasion, the defendant has been hospitalized for this condition. The defendant has in the past and at present works for General Dynamics/Electric Boat.

The plaintiff has worked two jobs for a considerable period of time in order to try and provide financial stability in the family.

The plaintiff has been employed since 1982 in various tasks CT Page 14113 as a waitress, doing babysitting and working at an insurance agency as a customer service representative. The plaintiff is now a licensed insurance agent. The plaintiff was formerly employed by the Parks Insurance Agency. Her present employer is the Sound Insurance Agency.

The plaintiff has acquired considerable expertise and experience as an insurance agent. Two weeks ago at a meeting with her employer, she learned that an insurance organization known as Amica has purchased her agency and there is a possibility that her employment may be terminated.

The plaintiff and the defendant own a home and certain real estate known as 120 Mitchell Street in Groton. According to the testimony, there is an outstanding first mortgage on the property in the amount of $88,036.00, and a second mortgage in the amount of $5,938.00.

The plaintiff feels on the basis of present market conditions, mindful of the encumbrances noted, that there is very little or zero equity in the real estate.

The plaintiff described the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as having great tension.

Since September of 1998 when the plaintiff left the home with the minor child and with the adult child, Scott, the plaintiff has been paying the defendant $200.00 monthly toward keeping the mortgage obligations current.

The plaintiff moved back to the residence in April of 1999 due to financial constraints.

The plaintiff is currently paying all expenses attendant to the subject real estate and the defendant is contributing $200.00 monthly to her.

The plaintiff is desirous of keeping and maintaining the home for herself and the minor child. The plaintiff is willing to assume the debts and obligations that are presently attached to the real estate.

The plaintiff wishes to retain her automobile and personal property and is desirous of having the court award her a suitable percentage of her husband's vested or prospective pension CT Page 14114 benefits.

The plaintiff at this juncture has no retirement plan to which she can resort. The plaintiff has no present medical coverage incident to her present position. The plaintiff has relied on the defendant's medical coverage incident to his continued employment at Electric Boat.

The plaintiff anticipates that in January 2000 she may be covered insofar as medical insurance is concerned, but is desirous in the interim of having the privilege at her own expense to have such coverage as Cobra provides incident to her husband's employment.

The plaintiff is desirous of having life insurance presently covering the defendant be maintained and continued with the children being the beneficiaries.

The residence at 120 Mitchell Street, Groton, according to the plaintiffs testimony is in need of electrical rewiring, she has indicated that all of the rooms in the residence are not finished, that the property needs painting. The plaintiff does not presently have the requisite funds to correct the deficiencies in the home.

The plaintiff acknowledged that during the course of the marriage that the defendant helped in maintaining the home, cleaning and cooking.

The plaintiff acknowledged that the defendant's medical condition contributed to the problems in the marriage.

Four years ago the defendant underwent a series of tests at Yale New Haven with regard to trying to determine the source of the nocturnal seizures to which he was subject.

During the defendant's stay at Yale New Haven the plaintiff visited him every other day.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 46b-56
Connecticut § 46b-56
§ 46b-82
Connecticut § 46b-82
§ 46b-84
Connecticut § 46b-84

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeney-v-beeney-no-0548177-oct-28-1999-connsuperct-1999.