Leoutsacos v. Leoutsacos, No. 011849 (Mar. 13, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3837
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 12, 1998
DocketNo. 011849
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3837 (Leoutsacos v. Leoutsacos, No. 011849 (Mar. 13, 1998)) 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
Leoutsacos v. Leoutsacos, No. 011849 (Mar. 13, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3837 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This lawsuit first came to this Court by a complaint dated CT Page 3838 December 30, 1996 and returnable January 14, 1997 seeking a dissolution of the marriage, a fair and equitable division of personal property and such other relief as in equity appertains.

The Defendant appeared by counsel on January 27, 1997.

On February 25, 1997 a motion to enjoin and a motion for exclusive possession were filed by the Plaintiff and acted on by the Court, Hurley, J. and Solomon, J. Another motion regarding a job search was filed on February 27, 1997, but was not acted upon.

On February 27, 1997, the Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and a cross complaint.

The cross complaint requested a dissolution of marriage, alimony, an allocation of debt, a division of personal property, an allowance to defend and other fair and equitable relief

The Defendant, on February 27, 1997, filed a motion for an accounting, which was granted by Hurley, J., based on a stipulation.

The Defendant, on February 27, 1997, filed a motion for alimony and other relief, which was acted on by the Court, Solomon, J., granting alimony pendente lite of $320.00 weekly, plus $40.00 on a determined arrearage.

On April 14, 1997, the Defendant filed a motion for contempt, but the same was never acted on.

On June 13, 1997, the Plaintiff was granted exclusive possession of the residence at 149 Geer Road, Griswold by the Court, Solomon, J.

On June 13, 1997, attorney's fees of $1,000.00 were allowed for the Defendant from the Plaintiff and the parties were directed to cooperate to list the marital residence for sale.

On December 15, 1997, the Defendant filed a motion to compel which the Court, Solomon, J., granted requiring the Plaintiff to provide an updated business ledger for 1997 to Defendant's counsel.

Various financial affidavits had been filed incident to the CT Page 3839 foregoing motions.

The matter came on for hearing by the Court on February 24, 1998.

The Plaintiff and his counsel were present throughout.

The Defendant and his counsel were present throughout.

The Court makes the following findings of fact.

This is the second marriage for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant had children in the first marital union.

The Plaintiff was born in the United States.

Plaintiff served in the United States Air Force between 1964 and 1969.

Plaintiff's work history consists of work at the government space center in New Jersey, work at Electric Boat, work at R.C.A. Sound Laboratories, and at the Bentley Co. from London, England for ten years.

Plaintiff has attended an institute for education as an engineer.

Plaintiff is now self-employed.

Plaintiff had a pension fund while working for Bentley which she cashed in.

Plaintiff works serving the textile industry in electronics for textile machines.

Seventy percent of Plaintiff's work is in New York.

On occasion, Plaintiff travels overseas incident to his work and for certain time periods only spent weekends in Connecticut.

When first married, the Defendant was working at her former husband's restaurant.

There was one child issue of this marital union who is now CT Page 3840 age 21.

During the marriage, children of both the Plaintiff and Defendant by their prior unions resided with them.

Plaintiff and Defendant lived together for one year before they were married.

When the parties were first married, the Plaintiff arranged to open a clothing store for the Defendant, which the Defendant managed, but it failed and was closed.

At one point in the marriage, the Defendant worked for a trucking company.

The textile industry in this country has suffered some decline in the last few years.

Plaintiff sent the Defendant to school to learn computer skills and purchased a computer for her.

The parties separated in January 1997.

The Defendant incurred many credit card charges for a service known as QVC, which was incident to her use of the computer.

See Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.

Defendant was at the computer for long periods of time on many days.

In January 1997 when the Defendant vacated the home residence, she removed most of the contents thereof.

The residence contained 4800 square feet and had two bathrooms.

After the Defendant's departure, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the residence and for awhile his son and the son's wife lived there with him.

Plaintiff's business name was Textiletronics.

As concerns Plaintiff's 1996 income tax return, $15,000.00 is due to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). There was an agreement CT Page 3841 with the IRS to pay $1,000.00 per month to liquidate the debt.

The residence of the parties at 149 Geer Road has been foreclosed and there is a deficiency due and owing.

Plaintiff has back problems; it gets thrown out on occasion if he lifts anything heavy and his knees are going bad.

In working on textile machinery, Plaintiff often requires help with heavy weights or motors.

Some time after the Defendant left the residence and while the Plaintiff was still residing there, the premises were burglarized.

Plaintiff was represented in the foreclosure action by Attorney Irving.

Plaintiff now pays $1,000.00 a month for an apartment, two of his children live with him and will help out financially.

It is Plaintiff's claim that the value of the goods, furnishings and antiques removed from the foreclosed residence by the Defendant were worth $50,000.00.

When he is traveling incident to his work, Plaintiff stays in modest lodgings. See Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.

Plaintiff has no pension presently and no health insurance.

Plaintiff's business is not incorporated.

Defendant's Exhibit A, the 1994 income tax return of the parties' Schedule C for Plaintiff's business, reflects gross receipts of $157,746.00 and net profit of $31,438.00; for 1995 Schedule C, gross receipts $249,705.00 and net profit of $42,063.00, Defendant's Exhibit B for 1996, Schedule C $186,326.00 and net profit of $47,650.00. See Defendant's Exhibit C.

Plaintiff does some textile machine design work to assist in keeping older machines operating efficiently.

The projected 1997 gross from Plaintiff's projected Schedule C is anticipated at $189,469.00 and projected expenses of CT Page 3842 $154,924.00. See Defendant's Exhibit D.

Plaintiff has paid Defendant's counsel to date $1,000.00 and $2,500.00 to counsel in the foreclosure.

For record of Plaintiff's business account with Jewett City Savings Bank for the business Textile Electronics May 1997 through December 1997 see Defendant's Exhibit E.

Plaintiff's hourly rate varies from $20.00 an hour to $100.00 an hour depending on the job and the client.

Plaintiff has done electronic work on textile machines in the past in Canada and India. He travels all over the United States; has been in this field for 20 years, the last 15 years for himself.

Plaintiff has had discussions with some companies where he would receive $100,000.00 annually. This would require he relocate to Mexico.

Plaintiff has received an offer from a business in Pennsylvania for $40,000.00 a year.

Plaintiff received $1,900.00 in an insurance settlement for damage to the residential premises during the burglary.

During the summer months, the Plaintiff in the past has had the opportunity to work a second job as mate on the fishing vessel Mijoy, for which he receives $100.00 a trip.

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

Related

Pasquariello v. Pasquariello
362 A.2d 835 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Tobey v. Tobey
345 A.2d 21 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1974)
Leo v. Leo
495 A.2d 704 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Blake v. Blake
541 A.2d 1201 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leoutsacos-v-leoutsacos-no-011849-mar-13-1998-connsuperct-1998.