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,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45572 - R. G.-R. v. S. R. ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the plaintiff, R. G.-R., appeals from the judgments of the trial court awarding the defendant, S. R., sole legal and physical custody of their minor child. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges postjudgment orders made by the court on May 26 and October 26, 2022. As to the May 26, 2022 judgment, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by granting the defendant’s motion to modify custody and motions for contempt filed by the defendant and the guardian ad litem, and denying a motion for contempt that she filed. As to the October 26, 2022 judgment, she claims that her constitutional right to procedural due process was violated when the court modified custody without affording her notice and a hearing and that the court failed to base the modification on the best interest of the minor child or a substantial change in circumstances. We dismiss as moot the plaintiff’s appeal from the May 26, 2022 judgment, except the portions of the appeal that challenge the court’s contempt rulings, which we affirm in part and reverse in part. We also dismiss as moot the plaintiff’s appeal from the October 26, 2022 judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46223 - M. C. v. A. W. ("The defendant, A. W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, M. C. On appeal, we distill the defendant’s claims to be that the court (1) failed to recuse itself on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest, (2) made clearly erroneous factual findings in support of its financial and property distribution orders, (3) failed to consider adequately the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the court’s discovery orders in entering its financial and property distribution orders, and (4) improperly distributed the parties’ assets. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC 46005- M. S. v. M. S. ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the self-represented defendant, M. S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for contempt. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly construed a child support order and found that the plaintiff, M. S., did not owe an arrearage. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45848 - Czunas v. Mancini ("In this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the defendant, Richard J. Mancini, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify child support and awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, Sandra E. Czunas, to defend against this appeal. The defendant claims that the court (1) improperly found that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances since the date of the entry of the prior child support order that warranted a modification of that order, and (2) the court abused its discretion in awarding the plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,000 to defend against this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45849 - L. K. v. K. K. ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the defendant, K. K., appeals challenging the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify the amount of unallocated alimony and child support that he is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, L. K. On appeal, the defendant raises various claims concerning the denial of his motion to modify, which we distill to the following: (1) the court, in its written order denying the motion to modify, improperly failed to address the defendant’s claim that a reduction in the child support component of the unallocated order was warranted due to the fact that one of the parties’ three children had reached the age of majority, and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to modify by ignoring the tax returns, financial statements and other financial documents that had been submitted into evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45745 - Marafi v. El Achchabi ("The defendant Hind El Achchabi appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Sadiq Marafi. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to the plaintiff's actions for fraudulent misrepresentation, statutory theft, and unjust enrichment, and (2) committed plain error in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because those actions were predicated on adultery in contravention of General Statutes § 52-572f.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46000 - A. A. M. v. M. Z. ("The self-represented defendant, M. Z., appeals from the judgment of the trial court resolving several postjudgment motions. Because we conclude that the defendant’s appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20832 - Hepburn v. Brill ("This appeal requires us to consider the jurisdictional effects of the 2012 amendments to the third-party visitation statute, General Statutes § 46b-59 (b); see Public Acts 2012, No. 12-137, § 1; on the judicial gloss articulated in Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 234–35, 789 A.2d 431 (2002), which imposed ‘‘high jurisdictional hurdles’’ that individuals petitioning for third-party visitation with a minor child must overcome. The plaintiff, Laurie Hepburn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her amended verified petition for third-party visitation (amended petition) with her niece, L, who is the biological child of the defendant, Chandler Brill. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly treated the defendant’s motion to dismiss as presenting a question of subject matter jurisdiction rather than the court’s statutory authority to act pursuant to § 46b-59. The plaintiff also contends that the trial court incorrectly determined that the amended petition failed to include the specific and good faith allegations necessary to demonstrate that (1) she had a parent-like relationship with L, and (2) L would suffer real and significant harm if visitation were to be denied. We agree with the plaintiff and conclude that, given the Superior Court’s plenary jurisdiction over family relations matters under General Statutes § 46b-1; see, e.g., Sousa v. Sousa, 322 Conn. 757, 776–77, 143 A.3d 578 (2016); and the 2012 amendments to § 46b-59 (b), the trial court incorrectly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Roth. We also conclude that the amended petition alleges facts sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing under § 46b-59. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s amended petition.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45857 - Y. H. v. J. B. ("The self-represented defendant, J. B, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Y. H., and entering certain financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion (1) in declining to award him alimony and child support, (2) in its orders regarding the division of marital property, specifically, the marital home and the parties’ business, and (3) in granting the plaintiff’s motions for contempt and ordering him to pay $40,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. Because we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award child support on the ground that it was not requested, and without considering and applying the child support guidelines, we reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to all the financial orders and remand this case for a new trial on all financial issues. We further conclude that the court’s award of attorney’s fees, to the extent it was imposed as a sanction for the defendant’s contempt, constituted an abuse of its discretion, which entitles the defendant to a new hearing as to the appropriate sanction for his wilful violation of the court’s orders. Finally, to the extent that the award of attorney’s fees was made pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-62 (a), this case must also be remanded for reconsideration in light of the new financial orders that will be issued on remand.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46050 - De Almeida-Kennedy v. Kennedy ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the self-represented defendant, James Kennedy, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for modification of his unallocated alimony and child support obligation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) determining that the change in residence of the parties’ older child did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances, (2) denying the defendant’s motion without determining the child support component of the unallocated order, (3) interpreting the unallocated support obligation as set forth in the parties’ separation agreement to be nonmodifiable, and (4) disallowing the testimony of the parties’ older child as to the alleged cohabitation of the plaintiff, Fatima K. De Almeida-Kennedy. We reverse in part the judgment of the court.")

AC45727 - Marshall v. Marshall ("In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, John Marshall II, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Margaret Marshall, challenging the factual and legal bases for the court’s alimony and child support orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) relied on the plaintiff’s allegedly manipulated 2020 income in fashioning the alimony and child support orders, rather than relying on the plaintiff’s 2021 partnership distributions, and, alternatively, (2) based those support orders on the plaintiff’s reported income rather than on her earning capacity. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45698 - F. S. v. J. S. ("In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, J. S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff, F. S., sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child, O. The self-represented defendant claims on appeal that he is entitled to a new custody hearing because the court improperly (1) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2018), by refusing to continue to provide him with a medical accommodation previously granted to him by the court; (2) terminated the defendant’s presentation of evidence and denied certain motions in retaliation for his exercising his rights under the ADA; (3) relied on the defendant’s mental disability as a basis for awarding custody to the plaintiff and restricting his right to visitation; (4) relied on a stale custody evaluation in determining the best interest of O; (5) required the parties to request leave of the court before filing motions and denied multiple such requests made by the defendant; (6) awarded sole custody of O to the plaintiff despite the fact that the parties previously shared custody and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances; (7) found that the defendant suffered from narcissistic personality disorder; and (8) committed evidentiary errors by (a) admitting the testimony of a social worker from the Department of Children and Families and (b) admitting and relying on an affidavit of O’s former therapist, Damion Grasso. Having carefully reviewed the voluminous record presented, we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45824 - Wethington v. Wethington ("The defendant, Joshua Wethington, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Esther Wethington. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted several motions for contempt pendente lite filed by the plaintiff, (2) distributed the parties’ assets, and (3) denied several of his postjudgment motions to reargue. We reverse the judgment of the trial court only with respect to the court’s (1) denial of one of the defendant’s motions to reargue and (2) grants of two of the plaintiff’s contempt motions, in whole or in part, insofar as the court adjudicated the defendant in contempt of the automatic orders pursuant to Practice Book § 25-5 (b) for actions that he committed before the automatic orders had become effective against him. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions