The 2024 edition of our research guide on Modification of Judgments in Family Matters has been added to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

SC 20982 - K. S. v. R. S. ("This case comes to us on appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a complex marital dissolution action. The case concerns, among other issues common to divorce proceedings such as custody and child support, the authority of a trial court in Connecticut to decline to give full faith and credit to the judgments and court orders of another state that impact the marital estate. We conclude that the trial court was required to give full faith and credit to the orders of the other state. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

he 2024 edition of our research guide on Breach of Promise to Marry and Return of Engagement Ring and Courtship Gifts has been added to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC 46365 - Thomas v. Cleary ("In this custody matter, the self-represented defendant, Meghan M. Cleary, appeals from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating several postjudgment motions. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted a postjudgment motion for modification of custody brought by the plaintiff, Kenneth L. Thomas, (2) ‘‘displayed consistent bias’’ against her, and (3) found that she had an imputed earning capacity of $90,000. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46271 - Kosar v. Giangrande ("In this dissolution action, the defendant, Marie Giangrande, appeals following the trial court’s judgment dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Jaromir Kosar, and the trial court’s order on the plaintiff’s amended motion for contempt and injunctive relief. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court, Hon. Michael E. Shay, judge trial referee, (1) abused its discretion and deprived her of due process of law by limiting her case-in-chief on the plaintiff’s pendente lite amended motion for contempt and motion for injunctive relief to only fifteen minutes and (2) abused its discretion in refusing to hear her motion to open the parties’ pendente lite agreement regarding the marital home. She also claims that the court, Moukawsher, J. (3) committed plain error by presiding over the parties’ dissolution trial after conducting a hearing on the motion of the defendant’s then counsel to withdraw his appearance and (4) made credibility determinations on improper bases. We agree with the defendant on her first claim but disagree with her on her other claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46656 - Yanavich v. Yanavich ("The defendant, Joseph Yanavich, has presented two issues for our review in this postmarital dissolution appeal. First, he claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to modify alimony and child support. Second, he claims that the court improperly failed to impose sanctions on the plaintiff, his former wife, Jennifer M. Yanavich, after finding her in contempt for violating the terms of the dissolution judgment. More specifically, as to his first claim, he seeks our determination as to whether the retained earnings of a subchapter S corporation derived from past years’ earnings and distributed to its sole shareholder in a later year or years can be considered present income to the shareholder for purposes of setting his or her alimony and child support obligations. As to his second claim, he argues that the court abused its discretion by not imposing sanctions on the plaintiff after finding that she wilfully failed to prevent the minor children from being inappropriately exposed to the parties' disputes over financial issues in violation of the explicit terms of their marital separation agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45535 - Ciarleglio v. Martin ("The defendant, Miriam Martin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting an annulment of her marriage to the decedent, Vincent Ciarleglio. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacked standing to continue the annulment action after the decedent’s death, (2) the plaintiff’s action to annul the marriage following the death of the decedent constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a legally valid marriage, and (3) the court held the plaintiff to an incorrect burden of proof when it granted the annulment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46014 - Hallock v. Hallock ("The defendant, Jennifer L. Hallock, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Timothy J. Hallock, and entering certain financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) failed to properly consider her pendente lite motions for alimony and counsel fees, (2) applied an improper legal standard to her claim for alimony and the division of the marital property, (3) applied an improper legal standard to deny her claim for attorney's fees, (4) improperly took judicial notice of facts regarding her employment prospects and earning capacity, and (5) improperly discredited her testimony that the plaintiff's consumption of alcohol caused the marriage to end. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46184 - Karen v. Loftus ("This marital dissolution matter, which requires the resolution of jurisdictional and merits related issues arising from the arbitration of a specific aspect of the parties' prenuptial agreement, returns to us for a second time. Following the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the plaintiff, Cindy L. Karen, has endeavored to open that judgment for the limited purpose of allowing discovery with respect to her claim that the arbitration award, which subsequently was incorporated into the dissolution judgment, was procured by fraud committed by the defendant, William P. Loftus. In this appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied her motion to open the dissolution judgment for the limited purpose of conducting discovery after it concluded that she had failed to establish probable cause that the arbitration award pertaining to the financial ramifications of the defendant's departure from his employment with Merrill Lynch, and its subsequent incorporation into the dissolution judgment, was obtained by fraud. The defendant disagrees with the merits of the plaintiff's claim and, additionally, contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's motion to open because her challenge to the arbitration award was not timely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-420 (b). We are not persuaded by the defendant's jurisdictional claim and agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly concluded that she had failed to establish probable cause as to her fraud claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment denying the plaintiff's motion to open and remand the matter for further proceedings.")

AC45809 - Labieniec v. Megna ("In this custody dispute, the defendant, Robert Megna, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a postjudgment motion to modify custody of the parties' minor child, C, filed by the plaintiff, Jennifer Labieniec, and from the denial of his postjudgment motion for a passport for C. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion for order regarding a passport for C, and (2) modified the agreement of the parties as to C's primary residence for school purposes. We disagree with the defendant as to his first claim but agree with him on his second claim. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46544 - Ammar I. v. Evelyn W. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar I., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition for third-party visitation with O, S, and M (children), his biological children with respect to whom his parental rights were terminated in 2019. Although the plaintiff raises various claims on appeal, the dispositive ones are whether the court properly determined that (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (act), which has been adopted by Connecticut and codified at General Statutes § 46b-115 et seq., and (2) General Statutes § 52- 592 does not apply in the present case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45960 - N. R. v. M. P. ("The plaintiff, N. R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, M. P., sole legal and physical custody of their two minor children. On appeal, N. R. claims that the court improperly (1) awarded M. P. sole legal and physical custody of the children, (2) issued an order that, if N. R. is not current on child support, he must share one half of the travel expenses for the minor children to visit him in Connecticut, and (3) relied on the testimony of the guardian ad litem in its analysis of the best interests of the minor children. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46158 - Briggs v. Briggs ("The plaintiff, Kathryn A. Briggs, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, David L. Briggs. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) awarding to the defendant the entirety of his interest in Sunriver Fund, LP (Sunriver Fund); (2) establishing a parenting schedule unsupported by the evidence and in contrast to the schedules suggested by both parties; and (3) issuing orders concerning final decision-making authority as to the children’s extracurricular activities. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC 20882 - R. H. v. M. H. ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court improperly delegated its judicial authority when it gave the plaintiff father, R. H., the authority to decide the nature and scope of the visitation his ex-spouse, the defendant mother, M. H., could have with their minor child, R. Specifically, the trial court’s visitation order provided that, if, ‘‘at any time,’’ the plaintiff ‘‘reasonably determines’’ that R was negatively impacted by the defendant’s visitation, the plaintiff may, among other things, ‘‘suspend’’ the defendant’s visitation with R. The defendant appeals from the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiff’s motion for modification of the order of custody over the parties’ minor children. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly delegated its judicial authority to the plaintiff when it gave him the authority to suspend her visitation with R if the plaintiff reasonably determined that the unsupervised visits were causing R to endure negative behavioral or emotional consequences. Although the trial court attempted to balance the interests of the parties and the children, we conclude that the trial court improperly delegated its judicial authority to the plaintiff. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court’s order1 modifying custody")

• SC 20882 Concurrence - R. H. v. M. H.

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45791 - Walton v. Walton ("The defendant, Deepa B. Walton, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Robert S. Walton IV. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found her in contempt for various alleged violations of the court’s automatic and/or pendente lite orders, (2) awarded the plaintiff his entire federal pension without assigning a value to it, (3) denied her request for production of an appraisal completed by an appraiser retained by the plaintiff, and (4) distributed the parties’ property in a disproportionate and inequitable manner. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC 46049 - S. C. v. J. C. ("In this custody dispute, the plaintiff mother, S. C., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting certain postdissolution motions of the defendant father, J. C. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) continuing a previously issued emergency order of temporary custody that gave the defendant sole legal custody of the parties’ two children and primary physical custody of the parties’ youngest child, A, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-56f because (a) the defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an immediate and present risk of physical danger or psychological harm to the children sufficient to support his application and, therefore, the granting of his application was based on clearly erroneous factual finding, and (b) the court’s award of temporary custody to the defendant, who had been ‘‘found . . . to be a domestic abuser’’ was an abuse of discretion, not in the best interests of the children, and against federal and state public policy; and (2) granting the defendant’s motion for contempt for failure to comply with a court order requiring the plaintiff to transfer physical custody of A to the defendant. We conclude that the record is inadequate to review the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an immediate and present risk of physical danger or psychological harm to the children and, therefore, affirm the judgment as to that portion of the plaintiff’s first claim. We dismiss the appeal as to the plaintiff’s claim challenging the dispositional portion of the temporary custody order granting temporary custody to the defendant because we conclude that it is moot in light of events that have occurred since this appeal was filed. We agree, however, with the plaintiff on her claim challenging the court’s order finding her in contempt and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of contempt.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45329 - Wald v. Cortland-Wald ("The defendant, Anne Louise Cortland-Wald, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Francis Mark Wald, and from certain postjudgment financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) deviated from the child support guidelines in entering its support orders, (2) found that the defendant had an annual earning capacity of $60,000, (3) modified pendente lite support orders, (4) failed to adjudicate the plaintiff in contempt for violating the court’s pendente lite and automatic orders, (5) failed to award reasonable attorney’s fees after adjudicating the plaintiff in contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders, (6) failed to award attorney’s fees to the defendant to prosecute her appeal, and (7) issued a postjudgment modification of the dissolution judgment. We conclude that the court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines to calculate its child support orders and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand the matter for a new trial on all financial orders. We affirm the judgment of the court as to the defendant’s motions for contempt.")

AC 46247 - Trent v. Trent ("In this postdissolution matter, the plaintiff, David L. Trent, appeals from certain judgments of the trial court stemming from two postdissolution motions filed by him and one postdissolution motion filed by the defendant, Katia R. Trent. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendant’s motion for contempt, which alleged that the plaintiff failed to pay his share of child care expenses, (2) denied his motion for contempt, which claimed that the defendant failed to comply with a discovery order, and (3) denied his motion to modify alimony and child support. We agree with the plaintiff on his first and third claims but disagree with him on his second claim. Accordingly, we reverse the court’s judgment of contempt and the judgment denying the plaintiff’s motion for modification as to alimony and child support. We affirm the judgment denying the defendant’s motion for contempt.")

AC 45654 - Nedder v. Nedder ("In this appeal from a marital dissolution judgment, the defendant, Lauren E. Nedder, claims that the trial court erred in (1) ordering that the plaintiff, Ernest J. Nedder, use specific assets to pay certain expenses and debt, (2) failing to assign a value to a quasi-pension account prior to dividing the parties’ property, and (3) fashioning its alimony orders. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,