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.
Family Law

Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4474

AC43541 - Schott v. Schott ("The defendant, Terrence John Schott, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his postjudgment motion to modify his alimony obligation. He claims that, pursuant to the plain terms of the parties' separation agreement, the court was obligated to terminate that obligation once it found that the plaintiff, Nancy Schott, was cohabitating with another person. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")




Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4421

AC42416 - Conroy v. Idlibi ("The self-represented defendant, Ammar A. Idlibi, returns to this court in his continuing effort to reverse the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Katie N. Conroy. In the present appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court, Connors, J., abused its discretion (1) by denying his motion to open based on fraud (motion to open) and (2) by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43948 - Zheng v. Xia ("The self-represented plaintiff, Zhe Zheng, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion to modify child support filed by the defendant, Feifei Xia. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly ordered him to pay the defendant 13 percent of his annual bonus as supplemental child support. In issuing its order, the trial court deviated from the child support guidelines on the basis of the "significant disparity in the parties' income." The reason to deviate given by the court is not a permissible rationale under the child support guidelines and Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 99–103, 995 A.2d 1 (2010). We therefore reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")

AC43297 - Cunningham v. Cunningham ("The plaintiff, Mary Cunningham, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant, Gerard Cunningham, for a domestic relations order relating to distributions from his pension plan. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly modified the property division set forth in the parties' 2011 dissolution judgment by (1) requiring the plaintiff, at the defendant's direction, to assign a portion of her 50 percent joint survivor annuity from the defendant's pension benefit to a third party, (2) requiring the plaintiff to share in the cost of the 50 percent joint survivor annuity election under the pension plan, and (3) adopting a formula that could result in an unjustified reduction to the plaintiff's marital portion of the retirement benefit that she receives under the pension plan.We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4415

SC20330 - Oudheusden v. Oudheusden ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in awarding the plaintiff, Penny Oudheusden, $18,000 per month in permanent, nonmodifiable alimony. On this issue, we agree with the Appellate Court and the defendant, Peter Oudheusden, that the award constituted an abuse of discretion, and we therefore affirm the Appellate Court's order of remand to the trial court for a hearing on new financial orders.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4389

AC42737 - Giordano v. Giordano ("In this dissolution matter, the defendant, Carl V. Giordano, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting two postjudgment motions filed by the plaintiff, Renee Giordano. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's (1) motion for contempt and (2) motion for appellate attorney's fees. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43509 - Boyd-Mullineaux v. Mullineaux ("The plaintiff, Jennifer Boyd-Mullineaux, appeals from the decision of the trial court denying her postjudgment motion for contempt as to a claimed arrearage for unallocated alimony and child support. She claims that the court incorrectly determined that, according to the parties' separation agreement, she was not entitled to receive as unallocated alimony and child support a percentage of profit distributions received by the defendant, Daniel Mullineaux, from his purchased membership interest in a company. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4376

AC43293 - Mecca v. Mecca ("The defendant, William F. Mecca, Jr., appeals from the decision of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of dissolution. On appeal, he argues that the court abused its discretion by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard with respect to his motion to open and (2) failing to consider a pattern of fraudulent conduct on the part of the plaintiff, Elizabeth Mecca. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41858 - Carten v. Carten ("The defendant, Judy Junying Carten, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Donald George Carten, Jr. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court should have awarded her alimony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4368

AC43244 - Batista v. Cortes ("The self-represented defendant, Angel L. Cortes (father), appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify his child's primary residence to his residence from that of the plaintiff, Daisy G. Batista (mother). On appeal, the father (1) claims, in essence, that the court abused its discretion by concluding that it was in the child's best interests that she continue to reside primarily with her mother and (2) challenges the results of several payment audits showing that he owes an arrearage in child support. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41790 - M. S. v P. S. ("The defendant, P. S., appeals from the judgment of dissolution and the pendente lite order of the court awarding the plaintiff, M. S., attorney's fees. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) entering an excessive support order that consumes approximately 90 percent of the defendant's income and leaves him with insufficient income to pay for his basic needs, (2) entering an order permitting the plaintiff to relocate thirty-five miles from her current residence rather than the mutually agreed upon thirty-five miles from the other party's residence, and (3) awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees when the amounts billed were excessive and unreasonable. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC42984 - Johnson v. Johnson ("In this matter stemming from the dissolution of his marriage to the plaintiff, Lisa R. Johnson, the defendant, Peter A. Johnson, appeals from the trial court's postjudgment modification of child support and alimony, and entry of an educational support order. The defendant also appeals from the court's judgment finding him in contempt for failing to comply with those orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) committed plain error 'when it imposed its own findings and interpretation' of the parties' separation agreement, and 'failed to act in a manner that projected impartiality,' and (2) abused its discretion when it 'issued numerous contradictory findings without changing its modified orders,' entered orders 'beyond the statutory time frame' and 'found [him] in contempt without making [the] requisite findings.' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")