Bowe v. Bowe, No. Fa 990424189 (Oct. 12, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12713
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedOctober 12, 2000
DocketNo. FA 990424189
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12713 (Bowe v. Bowe, No. Fa 990424189 (Oct. 12, 2000)) 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
Bowe v. Bowe, No. Fa 990424189 (Oct. 12, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12713 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Having reviewed the evidence in this case, as well as the relevant authorities, including Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 46b-81, 46b-82, and 46b-84, the court makes the findings and enters the orders hereinafter declared for the resolution of this dissolution proceeding.

I. FINDINGS

Betty J. Cox and William W. Bowe entered into marriage on September 30, 1978 in West Haven, Connecticut. They have lived continuously in Connecticut. The parties have two issue, namely; Rebecca Bowe, born on December 22, 1981, and William Bowe, born on November 5, 1983. Rebecca has obtained the age of majority. In less than a month minor William will celebrate his seventeenth birthday.

Plaintiff Betty Bowe is 47 years of age. She has completed one semester of college credits. Prior to the birth of their first child, the plaintiff was employed as an Engineer Clerk in the Engineering Department of the City of West Haven. Presently she works as a pre-school teacher at two day care centers, namely; the Sun Catchers, and the North Guilford Nursery School. Defendant William Bowe is 51 years of age. He attended but did not complete his studies at Gateway Community College. The defendant is a finish carpenter with Chapel Construction Company. The CT Page 12714 defendant's earning capacity presently is higher than that of the plaintiff. Both parties are in good health.

The parties are to be credited equally for the creation of a marital estate and for providing a supportive home for their two children. The parties purchased, improved and sold two houses in the city of West Haven prior to the acquisition of their present house which the defendant himself constructed at 90 Elm Street in Guilford, Connecticut. They moved into this house in 1988. However, tension in their relationship developed to the point of requiring separation. In April of this year, the plaintiff vacated the marital premises at 90 Elm Street, and took a rental a short distance away.

The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably. At one stage of their testimony each party admitted to being fifty percent responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. However, after plaintiff Betty Bowe's later discovery of the defendant's internet usage, she modified her position and testified that the defendant was substantially responsible for the disentergration of the the marriage. The court finds that each party contributed substantially equally to the breakdown of the marriage.

II. DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

Inasmuch as the marriage has broken down irretrievably, the marriage hereby is dissolved. Each party is now single and unmarried.

III. CUSTODY, VISITATION AND CHILD SUPPORT A. Custody and Visitation

On April 6, 2000 the court approved a pendente lite agreement of the parties with respect to the custody and visitation of minor William Bowe. By court approval the terms of the agreement embraced joint legal and physical custody and set out a schedule whereby minor William would alternate weekend visitation, and have certain consecutive night visitation with each parent. The approved agreement states in part that "[t]he intent is to alternate so that neither parent is without visitation for three consecutive days." The court finds that minor William has continued to reside at 90 Elm Street with his father and that he has spent relatively little time with his mother. Minor William is adjusting well to his parents' separation.

The court allowed an examination of minor William on the issue of custody. The examination took place in court in the presence of the parties, their counsel, and in the presence of his guardian ad litem who commenced the examination. Minor William testified that his preference is CT Page 12715 to live with his father, and to visit with his mother on a non-structured basis. The court has heard the positions of the parties with respect to custody and visitation.

The court finds that it is in minor Williams' best interest that his parents have joint legal custody, that he reside with his father, and that he have extensive visitation with his mother. The court hereby awards joint legal custody of minor William to the parties, and awards to plaintiff Betty J. Bowe rights of liberal visitation. These rights include the right to have minor William spend alternate weekends (Friday evening until Monday morning) at her residence.

B. Child Support

In accordance with the child support guidelines, plaintiff Betty Bowe shall pay to defendant William Bowe $94.00 per week as support for minor William, commencing one week from the issuance of this judgment. In addition, she shall be responsible for 42.5 per cent of his unreimbursed and/or uninsured medical expenses. This child support order is not retroactive.

IV. FINANCIAL ORDERS A. ASSETS 1. Premises at 90 Elm Street, Guilford, Connecticut

Defendant William Bowe shall have exclusive possession of the martial premises known as 90 Elm Street, Guilford, Connecticut. He shall provide to plaintiff Betty J. Bowe a promissory note in the amount of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000), without interest. In addition, he shall provide to her a mortgage on said premises as security for the note. Said note shall be due and payable on or before June 15, 2001.

If the note is not paid in full on or before said date, the parties shall cooperate in immediately thereafter placing the premises on the market for sale. The funds from the sale of the premises shall be distributed in the following priority: 1) payment of the first mortgage; 2) payment of the line of credit; 3) payment of customary closing costs; 4) payment of the $70,000 note to plaintiff Betty Bowe, 4) payment of the remainder to defendant William Bowe; provided, if he has not paid $3,250 to the plaintiff as a contribution to the payment of her counsel fees, as required by Part IV-F hereof, said amount shall be deducted from the defendant's share of closing proceeds and tendered to the plaintiff.

Defendant William Bowe shall not further encumber the subject premises CT Page 12716 by further use of the line of credit, nor shall he further mortgage, or permit said premises to be encumbered by any of his creditors. Nevertheless, if defendant William Bowe wishes to use the equity in the premises to assist him in paying the $70,000 note to the plaintiff he may do so, after providing her with at least twenty days advance written notice. In that event, the plaintiff shall cooperate by signing appropriate documents, provided she is guaranteed at the closing that the proposed arrangement will result in the payment of the $70,000 note.

2. Connecticut Carpenter's Pension Fund and Supplemental Annuity Plan

Plaintiff Betty J. Bowe hereby is awarded a one-half interest in defendant William Bowe's Connecticut Carpenter's Pension Fund.

3. Connecticut Supplemental Pension Annuity Plan

Plaintiff Betty J. Bowe hereby is awarded a one-half interest in defendant William Bowe's Carpenters Supplemental Pension Annuity Plan, valued as of the date of this judgment of dissolution.

4. IRA at Prudential

From the IRA account at Prudential defendant William Bowe shall transfer $17,500 to the plaintiff. The balance remaining after the transfer shall belong solely to him.

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

Related

Albrecht v. Albrecht
562 A.2d 528 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowe-v-bowe-no-fa-990424189-oct-12-2000-connsuperct-2000.