The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
AC38402 - Watkins v. Demos ("The plaintiff, Beverly Watkins, appeals from the postjudgment orders of the court entered after the dissolution of her marriage to the defendant, John Nicholas Demos. The plaintiff challenges the trial court’s denial of her postjudgment motion for contempt and her motion to open the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC38379 - Horey v. Horey ("The defendant, Joyce A. Horey, appeals from the financial orders relating to the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Alan L. Horey. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by entering an alimony order that terminates upon the sale of the plaintiff’s business. She argues that such a time limited alimony order is inconsistent with the facts found by the court, and that the court, therefore, reasonably could not have concluded as it did. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC38584 - Richman v. Wallman (Dissolution of marriage; "The self-represented plaintiff, Terri L. Richman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering her to sign the revised qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were prepared to divide the retirement assets of her former husband, the defendant, Scott A. Wallman, between the two parties. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly held her in contempt, and (2) improperly modified the distribution of the parties' property without the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to do so. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The Judicial Branch has created a new online resource designed to help make the divorce process clearer and easier to navigate.
From the Press Release:
A newly developed
is available to the
public through the
website to assist in
The Divorce Navigator is designed to help parties decide which divorce
process is best for them through a series of questions. Based on answers
the parties provide, this online resource will direct them toward a
divorce process that may best suit their situation.
For links to the law and other legal resources on divorce in Connecticut, see our Law about Divorce webpage.
AC38222 - Robinson v. Robinson ("The defendant, Donald J. Robinson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his postjudgment motion to modify his child support obligation to the plaintiff, Margaret Robinson. The defendant claims that the court erroneously denied his motion for modification because (1) its calculation of presumptive child support was erroneous; (2) it erroneously found shared physical custody; and (3) there was no justification for ordering an upward deviation from the presumptive amount of child support provided for in the guidelines. We do not agree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC38492 - Righi v. Righi ("This family law appeal requires us to analyze the statutory requirements necessary for a party to succeed on a postjudgment motion to modify, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86 (a). The plaintiff, John Righi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion of the defendant, Allison Righi, to modify a marital dissolution judgment child support order. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly granted the motion to modify after determining there had not been a substantial change in circumstances; and (2) erred by finding that the dissolution court, in creating the original child support order, failed to make a finding that applying the child support guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 46b-215b (a) and 46b-86 (a). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC38137 - Rubenstein v. Rubenstein ("The defendant, Bonnie Rubenstein, appeals from the judgment
of the trial court modifying the periodic alimony order that she previously had
been ordered to pay to the plaintiff, her former husband, Jeffrey Rubenstein.
Although the defendant’s brief is not a model of clarity, her claims on appeal
can be distilled as follows. The defendant claims that the trial court erred in
modifying the alimony order because (1) it improperly relied upon the
defendant’s receipt of an inheritance as the substantial change in circumstances
upon which it based said modification, (2) it erroneously concluded that the
plaintiff’s financial circumstances had worsened since 2006, and (3) it
improperly changed the character of the alimony award when it ordered an
increased periodic order of alimony instead of the lump sum that the plaintiff
had requested. We disagree with all of the defendant’s claims, and therefore affirm
the judgment of the trial court.")
AC38275 - Jeanette-Blethen v. Jeanette-Blethen ("The plaintiff, Aimee L. Jeanette-Blethen, appeals from the
postjudgment orders of the trial court, Carbonneau, J., granting the motion of
the defendant, Jeffrey M. Jeanette-Blethen, to modify custody with respect to
the primary residence of the parties’ minor children, and granting the motion
of Eileen Martin, the maternal grandmother, to intervene pursuant to General
Statutes § 46b-593 upon finding that a parent-like relationship existed between
her and the minor children. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court’s
factual findings are clearly erroneous and that the court abused its discretion
in modifying the custody order that was entered at the time of the dissolution judgment.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC37658 - Grant v. Grant ("The defendant, Winston Grant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Jennifer Grant, and entering related financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) finding him in contempt for violating the court’s automatic orders, (2) ordering him to pay the plaintiff $30,425.98 from his retirement account within thirty days from the judgment and (3) finding that he owned real property in Jamaica and ordering him to pay the plaintiff $20,000 reflecting the plaintiff’s contributions to that property within four years. We agree with the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")