HomeMy WebLinkAbout0938 ~ ~ ; 7'29
i~34 ;
' nJ ~ cix,cviT oau~r c~ ~
NIl~'I]E~'ld1H JDUICIAL~ CTRiLUIT
IN AI~ID ~R SAINT LUCIE
OOi1NIY, ~IDA ~
CASE N0. 85-706-FR-O1 R
f
IN RE : ~e Marri~e of
Q~ARI~S CATAI~ ,
I~usband, ~ .
~ ~
AI~NA M. CATAi~.'SE,
Wife .
/
FINAI~ ~JIJDC~43~TT OF ~DISSC~LTlZCN C~ PiE~RRiAGE
ZHIS CAL~SE c~ae befcme the Court for final hearing on Septe~ber 6,
1985 , an the Peti!-inr_ - far Dissolution of Marriage as filed by the Wife, AI+~IA
M. CA~A~4~E. Zhe Cburt has cc~,sidered ttre Petition fi.led by the t•life notin~
that no crnnterpetition was filed by the I~usbmzd. After having c~sidered
tesitmany of the parties a~d having heard argument of crnnsel, the Court finds
r~+at is has i~nrisdictian ot the subject matter and of the parties, that the
~rria,~e is irretrievable brok:en and that a reooncili.atian carmot be made
between the parties; aa~d the Caurt bei~ fu7.ly advised in the premises, the
Co~ makes the follvwing findirigs of fact :
1. 'Ihe parties wese ~rried oci No~vember 15, 1975.
2. Zhe parties were in tt~eir late 70's at the ri.me of their asrriage,
and each had appr~aximatel~ the sane income, t':c ?~usband's inoome bei.n~ slig~tly
greater th~ that of th~e Wi.fe .
3. 'Ihe parties' total incomes were deriv~ed solely frvm social sec~ity
benefits, and in the Wife's case, in additivn to soci.al security was sc~ne railroad
retirement, and they are pres~tly receiving thi.s income.
4. That dtsit~ the marria~e, the Huisband vwned an apartment which he
subsequently sold ~d pwrdlased a m~bile ho~ne . ~
S. That prior to the Wife' s u~arriage , st~e vwned a hvm~e and an automobi2e ~
which st~e sold and c~onverted to cash.
6. 'Ihe assets owned by the ~?Fife a~nd the ~usbar~d w+ere co-ro.ngled into a
joint ac~otnt, or joint sav~ngs~ and the parties lived on this income, the
interest earned an their savings, together with their retixmrnt and mnthly
inoome.
. nx 4~ i
80?K p~b~: '