Lietz v. Lietz

Connecticut Superior Court

Lietz v. Lietz

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 213, 5 Conn. Supp. 213, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 28, 1937

DocketFile #49254

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 213 (Lietz v. Lietz) 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

Lietz v. Lietz, 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 213, 5 Conn. Supp. 213, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINLAN, J.

I followed with close interest the testimony and court room conduct of parties and witnesses in this case. *214 The plaintiff has no case. He lives with a sister and a mother. He earns $319. per month and receives a bonus at Christmas. His wife lives .with her three boys and has been receiving $80. a month. The plaintiff’s sisters displayed more than the normal amount of intérest in his case, possibly because of the assistance their brother is at home. Indeed, on one occasion during the trial the younger sister directed the seating location of herself and brother near the counsel table. Both sisters were consulted as to the probable cross-examination of the son. I am satisfied the defendant, while of nervous temperament, should have been indulged rather than condemned and abandoned to her own plight. She has proven the allegations ofJ her cross-complaint, leaving the only serious question one of money.

That sum she is entitled to, not as an attempt to gouge her husband, as suggested, but as something that law provides. Her husband owes but $800. in the aggregate, including the price of his new car. $20. per week seems to be a fair sum for alimony and $10. a week for the support of the two younger boys, the defendant, of course, having the protection of the statute concerning modification if her husband’s income improves.

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

QUINLAN, J.

I followed with close interest the testimony and court room conduct of parties and witnesses in this case. *214 The plaintiff has no case. He lives with a sister and a mother. He earns $319. per month and receives a bonus at Christmas. His wife lives .with her three boys and has been receiving $80. a month. The plaintiff’s sisters displayed more than the normal amount of intérest in his case, possibly because of the assistance their brother is at home. Indeed, on one occasion during the trial the younger sister directed the seating location of herself and brother near the counsel table. Both sisters were consulted as to the probable cross-examination of the son. I am satisfied the defendant, while of nervous temperament, should have been indulged rather than condemned and abandoned to her own plight. She has proven the allegations ofJ her cross-complaint, leaving the only serious question one of money.

That sum she is entitled to, not as an attempt to gouge her husband, as suggested, but as something that law provides. Her husband owes but $800. in the aggregate, including the price of his new car. $20. per week seems to be a fair sum for alimony and $10. a week for the support of the two younger boys, the defendant, of course, having the protection of the statute concerning modification if her husband’s income improves.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 213, 5 Conn. Supp. 213, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lietz-v-lietz-connsuperct-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack