Heath v. Heath, No. 0117118 (Nov. 29, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 14758
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedNovember 29, 2000
DocketNo. 0117118
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 14758 (Heath v. Heath, No. 0117118 (Nov. 29, 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
Heath v. Heath, No. 0117118 (Nov. 29, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 14758 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Review of the File CT Page 14759

This matter first came to the court by virtue of summons and complaint, which complaint was dated February 9, 1999 and returnable March 9, 1999, in which complaint the plaintiff petitioner sought a dissolution of the marriage, alimony, custody of the minor children, support for the minor children, an equitable division of the marital estate, exclusive possession of the family residence located at 4 Terrace Avenue in Niantic, an assignment of the defendant's interest in and to the jointly owned real estate located at 4 Terrace Avenue, Niantic, an allocation of debts, an allowance to prosecute and such other relief as seen fair and equitable.

Accompanying the complaint was a pendente lite motion for alimony, custody and support, exclusive possession of the family residence and an allocation of debts. The usual case orders accompanied the complaint with the return of the sheriff attached thereto.

On March 31, 1999 the defendant appeared by counsel.

On April 8, 1999 further motions regarding alimony, custody and support, and exclusive possession were filed with the court.

On April 14, 1999 an answer to the complaint and a cross complaint was filed by the defendant and in the cross complaint the defendant requested a dissolution of the marriage, an order concerning custody of and access to the minor children, equitable division of all real and personal property and such other remedy as at law or equity may appertain.

Accompanying the answer and the cross complaint was a motion on behalf of the defendant for a pendente lite order as to custody and access to minor children.

On June 9, 1999 a further motion regarding alimony, custody and support and exclusive possession was filed by the plaintiff.

On July 6, 1999 a certain stipulation was approved by the parties and their counsel as concerns matters of physical custody and access concerning the minor children.

This stipulation also concerned itself with an agreement whereby the defendant turned over to his counsel the sum of $13,000.00, funds that had been on deposit with the Chelsea Groton Savings Bank to be held by counsel pending an orderly resolution of the matter.

On August 19, 1999 the plaintiff filed a motion with regard to the contemplated purchase of a new motor vehicle. CT Page 14760

On September 13, 1999 a further stipulation by the parties and their counsel was filed pertaining to the filing of a joint income tax return, an agreement whereby the plaintiff was to undertake making applications for employment, matters pertaining to issues involving the children and family services and the stakeholder as to the aforementioned $13,000.00.

On September 21, 1999 a motion to refer this file to Family Services pendente lite was filed.

On September 22, 1999 a motion to limit visitation pendente lite was filed by the plaintiff and on September 29, 1999 the plaintiff filed a further motion for alimony, custody and support.

On October 20, 1999 the plaintiff again filed a further motion for alimony, custody and support.

On November 3, 1999 new counsel appeared on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner and on December 3, 1999 new counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion for custody and support, which was granted by the court on February 1, 2000.

On January 19, 2000 the plaintiff filed a further motion for pendente lite alimony which was granted by the court, Corradino, J., on February 1, 2000 to the following effect: unallocated sum for alimony and support to be in the amount of $560.00 per week with the three minor children to be dependents of the plaintiff petitioner wife.

On January 31, 2000 both of the parties filed financial affidavits with the court.

Incident to a motion filed, there was a stipulation undertaken by the parties on March 13, 2000 whereby the defendant husband agreed to enter into counseling and certain terms and conditions incident thereto.

On November 15, 2000 and November 16, 2000 the plaintiff and the defendant with their respective counsel and their witnesses appeared before the court and the matter was heard to a conclusion.

The Court makes the following findings of fact.

The plaintiff's maiden name was Mary Scalera.

The plaintiff and the defendant were joined together in marriage on August 21, 1983 at the Town of East Hampton. CT Page 14761

Both parties have resided continuously in this state for more than twelve months prior to the filing of the petition.

The marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably with no reasonable prospect for reconciliation.

There are three minor children issue of this marital union as follows: Robert Xavier Heath, born March 17, 1989, Matthew John Heath, born August 25, 1991 and Peter Randall Heath born August 1, 1993.

No other minor children have been born to the plaintiff wife from the date of the marriage to the present time.

Neither of the parties have been recipients of welfare from the State of Connecticut or any town, city or municipality or any subdivision thereof.

The parties have been separated since January of 1998.

The plaintiff is age 45. She describes her health as follows: that she is emotionally and psychologically exhausted. The plaintiff indicated that she experiences problems with her back, that she is on many occasions depressed, anxious and scared.

The plaintiff has nerve damage in one leg as a result of injuries sustained in 1988 in an accident while working for United Parcel. This was the left leg and resulted in a permanent partial disability.

The plaintiff received $10,000.00 in 1989 incident to the injury settlement. The monies, the plaintiff testified, were used for family purposes.

The plaintiff testified that she experiences back pain, particularly in her lower back. The plaintiff has been treating with a physician for back pain.

The plaintiff, prior to her injury, worked for United Parcel Service for ten years. This employment ceased in 1987-1988, when the plaintiff became pregnant with the oldest child, Robert.

The plaintiff had been involved in a car accident in 1988, that resulted in these back problems. She received by way of settlement $40,000.00 as concerns this injury, a reduced amount after costs and attorney's fees. These monies allowed for a down payment on a home which was in part provided from funds from this settlement. This home has unfortunately subsequently been foreclosed. The home was located at 4 Terrace Avenue in Niantic. CT Page 14762

After her accident the plaintiff worked in the Town of Old Saybrook at a diner as a waitress. She was there for five years on and off. The plaintiff has not worked on a full-time basis since the birth of her son Robert.

In addition, the plaintiff on occasion worked at night and also worked at a tailoring shop, five or six hours a week.

The plaintiff now works 25 to 30 hours a week at $7.50 an hour at a bakery. The plaintiff's job skills by education were only through graduating from high school.

All three children issue of this union are in school. The child Peter is in the second grade, Matthew is in fourth grade and Robert is in the sixth grade. The plaintiff picks the children up after the completion of their school day in the afternoon.

The defendant had a daughter from a prior marriage who is now age 22 and during the pendency of this marriage paid support incident to said child.

The plaintiff testified that she also endeavored to assist this child although it was not one of her own during the term of the instant marriage.

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

Related

Unkelbach v. McNary
710 A.2d 717 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 14758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-heath-no-0117118-nov-29-2000-connsuperct-2000.