Rostain v. Rostain, No. Fa87 0236841 S (Oct. 11, 1990)
Opinion of the Court
The defendant shall be entitled to remove the dining room set at Remsenberg and any other tangible personal property upon which the parties are agreed. This is also true of the plaintiff.
While the court believes that the parties will be better served by leaving the majority of the furnishings at Remsenberg pending its sale, the parties are entitled to a division of the tangible personal property at this time as they may agree and, absent such an agreement, mediation by the Family Relations office, all as provided in paragraph 8 of the judgment.
Plaintiff's request for counsel fees is denied. See the court's comment in this regard upon the defendant's motion for contempt and/or orders to enforce the judgment.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 3rd day of October, 1990.
EDGAR W. BASSICK, III JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CT Page 2736
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.