This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at BridgeportDec 30, 2010
2011 Ct. Sup. 2211 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

No. FA104033148

December 30, 2010



The parties were married in New London, Connecticut on November 15, 2009. By complaint dated June 15, 2010, the Wife instituted this action claiming a dissolution of marriage, and other relief as law and equity might provide.

The Husband filed Motions to Dismiss and Answers to the Complaint. The Husband's Motions to Dismiss were denied by the court on November 4, 2010.

No children were born issue of this marriage.

The Husband is presently incarcerated, charged with the following felonies: Attempt to commit Murder, Assault 1st, Kidnap 1st Strangulation 1st, Unlawful Restraint 1st and Larceny 2nd.

The Wife claims she was the victim of domestic violence claiming the Husband stabbed her 40 times and choked her and kidnapped her. The Wife fled the State of Connecticut for her safety. The court does find that this court has jurisdiction in regards to this dissolution pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 446b-44(c).

The trial of this matter was held on December 29, 2010 via interactive audiovisual equipment (as permitted by Practice Book Section 23-68 and 25-39) with the Husband being incarcerated at Walker Correctional.

At the start of the trial the Husband stated that a continuance was needed due to the fact that there was a pending competency hearing in his criminal case. After a brief recess it was determined that on October 26, 2010 the Husband was found competent by the criminal court and that no further motions were pending in regards to that issue in the criminal case.

After that attempt to mislead the court with false information and delay the trial failed, the Husband then asked for a continuance for an attorney.

Notice was sent to the Husband on December 17, 2010 as to the date of trial. The Husband filed no Motion for continuance (although he is very seasoned and familiar with filing motions in this case). The court denied said request as untimely and dilatory, especially in light of the false claims made by the Husband at the start of the hearing.

After the Wife testified, the Husband then testified, under oath, that he had no reason to contest the dissolution, that he wanted what was best for the Wife and that he loved his Wife and wanted to give her peace.

The issue then before the court was division of personal property.

The Court finds that residence requirements have been satisfied and neither party has been the recipient of public assistance. All pertinent criteria outlined in Chapter 815j of the General Statutes were considered by the court in the entry of the following orders as well as the evidence, testimony and claims of law made by the parties:



A decree dissolving the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown shall enter on December 30, 2010.


Both parties knowingly and voluntarily waived an order of alimony, after having been advised by the court that they then would be precluded from ever asking for an order of alimony in any jurisdiction in the future if they did not ask for an order at this trial.


The Wife submitted a signed, sworn to, financial affidavit dated December 29, 2010.

The court used as a statement of his finances, the Application for Fee Waiver signed and sworn to by the Husband dated November 8, 2010.

The Wife makes no claims against the Husband as to any personal property.

The Husband claims that the Wife has his clothes, computer, CDs valued at approximately $3,500.00.

The Wife claims that she gave these items either to the Husband's Mother or his fiance or that some of the property was destroyed due to the fact that they were contaminated with her blood from the attack upon her.

The court finds credible the testimony of the Wife, that she gave the available items to representatives of the Husband. The testimony of the Husband was not credible on this issue. Therefore, no award of personal property or compensation for same is made in favor of the Husband.


There are no joint debts. The debts listed on the Wife's financial affidavit are solely in her name and/or incurred prior to the marriage. She is asking for no contribution from the Husband. Therefore, the Wife shall be solely responsible for the debts on her financial affidavit.


The wife shall be solely responsible for her own attorney fees.


Each party shall sign any necessary documents to effectuate the orders contained herein if necessary.