Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
John J. Lavoie v. Shelly Lavoie
TEMPORARY ORDERS RE MOTIONS # 110, # 111, # 118 AND # 122 ALL FILED BY THE DEFENDANT
The court addresses certain pre-judgment motions and objections between the above parties. The Court attaches a separate Memorandum of Law concerning the status of the plaintiff's military disability benefits that are payable to him and claimed by the defendant-wife.
Concerning the defendant's motion # 110, dated December 28, 2009 concerning sole use of motor vehicles, it is ordered that the '07 Subaru remain in the sole possession of the defendant-wife and that the other two vehicles which are suitable to accommodate the plaintiff's physical condition remain under his control and use for his transportation needs. The party having possession of any said automobile will be solely responsible for paying the appropriate insurance, taxes, and fees on each vehicle. Any arrearages will be addressed at final dissolution.
The defendant's motions # 111 concerning household expenses and liabilities, the Court finds that neither party has complied with either the spirit or the letter of the pre-trial standing orders concerning disposition and handling of such assets and related expenses. Both parties have availed to themselves for their own personal advantage and use certain assets, principally cash. Though the acts of each party have been willful, it remains in the mutual benefit of each party to protect those assets, especially the marital home during this pendente lite period.
Therefore, each party will be jointly responsible on a fifty-fifty (50-50) basis for all of the ordinary and necessary expenses associated with the maintenance and protection of the marital home at 16 East Litchfield Road South, Litchfield, Connecticut, although it appears that neither party is residing there at this time. Therefore, each party will mutually arrange for the payment of current mortgage, taxes, any utilities and insurance on the said marital home. The plaintiff will bear temporarily the full responsibility for insuring that the mortgage is paid currently on a monthly basis in order to prevent or cure any mortgage default and/or foreclosure that may be pending. The defendant will remain temporarily responsible for payment of the real estate taxes on the said premises as well as the homeowners' insurance. The said expenses incurred pendente lite by each party will be accounted for by each party and charged or credited against each party respectively at the time of final dissolution.
The Defendant's Motion For Contempt # 118 dated January 26, 2010 is hereby denied. The plaintiff's expenditure of certain amounts of money for payment of his bail bond will be charged against the plaintiff at the time of final dissolution and should be accounted for as a credit to the defendant in some percentage depending on the final property distribution or property allocation between the respective parties.
The Defendant's Motion For Contempt # 122 dated February 9, 2010 relating to the maintenance of property and liability insurance on certain motor vehicles as indicated earlier will remain the sole responsibility of the possessor of the respective vehicle. The defendant's Motion For Contempt is denied based on the parties' respective violation pari dilecto of the standing orders concerning use of the marital assets.
The Memorandum of Decision as referenced above concerning the availability and allocation of the plaintiff's military disability benefits has been temporarily addressed in the Court's Memorandum of Decision. However, this is without prejudice to either party to further argue at the final disposition concerning the treatment of such military disability benefits.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT,
Roche, J.
Roche, Vincent E., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: LLIFA4009192S
Decided: June 14, 2010
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)