AC44705 - Simpson v. Simpson (“In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the defendant,
Robert R. Simpson, appeals and the plaintiff, Janel Simpson, cross appeals from
the judgment of the trial court resolving several postjudgment motions of the
parties. Specifically, the defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly
(1) modified its original decision on the postjudgment motions by way of a
postappeal articulation, (2) construed provisions of the parties’ separation
agreement regarding child support and alimony, (3) awarded attorney’s fees to
the plaintiff, and (4) rendered an educational support order that failed to
comply with General Statutes § 46b-56c. In her cross appeal, the plaintiff
claims that the court improperly denied her motion seeking a modification of
alimony and child support. Because we agree with the defendant’s second claim
that the court misinterpreted the parties’ separation agreement regarding
additional child support and alimony payments and rendered an improper
educational support order, we conclude that it is unnecessary to resolve his
first claim regarding the court’s articulation. Furthermore, we conclude that,
because the court’s various financial orders and postjudgment rulings are
inextricably linked, these errors necessarily also require the reversal of the
court’s award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff and its denial of the
plaintiff’s motion for modification of alimony and child support. Accordingly,
we reverse the court’s remedial orders attendant to its denial of the
plaintiff’s motion for contempt as well as its rulings on the plaintiff’s
motion for order re college expenses and her motion for modification of alimony
and child support. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects, and the case
is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”)
AC45657 - Graham v. Graham (“In this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the
defendant, William Graham, appeals, and the plaintiff, Cheryl L. Graham, cross
appeals, from the judgment of the trial court rendered with respect to two
postjudgment motions for contempt filed by the plaintiff. The defendant claims
that the court improperly found him in contempt for wilfully violating postjudgment
orders pertaining to his obligations to pay alimony to the plaintiff and the
medical expenses of the parties’ children. The defendant also challenges the
court’s award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that
the court erred in dismissing an offer of compromise that she filed to resolve
her claim that the defendant violated the court’s postjudgment order relating
to his alimony obligation. We conclude that the court properly declined to
award interest pursuant to the plaintiff’s offer of compromise, but the form of
the judgment with respect thereto is improper and we remand the case with
direction to strike the plaintiff’s offer of compromise. We affirm the judgment
of the trial court in all other respects.”)