LexyCorpus case page
Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee.
July 23, 1992 · US
- Extracted case name
- Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee.
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.
Retrieval annotation
Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues
Evidence quotes
QDRO“children as provided through his employer and will share the unreimbursed expenses equally. 8. Defendant will make available to the plaintiff COBRA benefits. 9. The defendant will transfer his Shannon Enterprises, Inc. stock and one half his ESOP plan by QDRO to the plaintiff. 10. The defendant will be entitled to claim both children as dependents for income tax purposes. 11. The defendant to get the Ford Mustang and Bronco. The plaintiff to get the Mitsubishi Galant and the Jaguar which should defray her legal expenses. 12. The defendant will maintain $50,000 of life insurance for each child during their”
Source and provenance
- Source type
- courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
- Permissions posture
- public
- Generated status
- machine draft public v0
- Review status
- gold label pending
- Jurisdiction metadata
- US
- Deterministic extraction
- pending
- Generated at
- May 14, 2026
Related public corpus pages
Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.
Clean opinion text
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION After reviewing the evidence in light of the statutory criteria, the Court enters the following judgment on the complaint. 1. A decree is entered dissolving the marriage of these parties or the ground of irretrievable breakdown, all of the allegations of the complaint having been proven. 2. The real estate known as 66 Fermier Road, Willington, Connecticut shall be quitclaimed from the defendant to the plaintiff. The real estate known as Lakeview Drive, Holland, Massachusetts shall be quitclaimed from the plaintiff to the defendant. 3. Contents of both homes shall be equitably divided. If the parties cannot agree they may return to court for orders concerning same. 4. The defendant is ordered to pay periodic alimony to the plaintiff in the sum of $100 weekly for a period of three years, non-modifiable to amount and duration. 5. Custody shall be joint with primary physical custody with the plaintiff subject to reasonable and liberal CT Page 6957 visitation. 6. Support shall be in accordance with the guide lines, which at this juncture because of the speculative nature of defendant's bonus, tax consequences and medical expenses, to be $105.00 per week, per child. 7. The defendant will maintain medical and dental insurance for the minor children as provided through his employer and will share the unreimbursed expenses equally. 8. Defendant will make available to the plaintiff COBRA benefits. 9. The defendant will transfer his Shannon Enterprises, Inc. stock and one half his ESOP plan by QDRO to the plaintiff. 10. The defendant will be entitled to claim both children as dependents for income tax purposes. 11. The defendant to get the Ford Mustang and Bronco. The plaintiff to get the Mitsubishi Galant and the Jaguar which should defray her legal expenses. 12. The defendant will maintain $50,000 of life insurance for each child during their minority. 13. The claim of fault against the defendant was not known until after service of the complaint. 14. The real problem was the inability of the parties to accommodate to an acceptable method of birth control. BY THE COURT, Hon. Philip R. Dunn Judge, Superior Court