Family Law Appellate Court Opinions - September 2009

Below are the family law Appellate Court opinions issued in September 2009:

AC30125 — Buehler v. Buehler (“In this dissolution of marriage action, the plaintiff. . . appeals from the orders of the trial court relating to alimony and custody and support of the parties’ three minor children. On appeal, the plaintiff makes numerous claims as to the propriety of the court’s orders that were issued on two different dates. The defendant...argues that the plaintiff’s appeal is untimely as to many of those claims. The anomalous circumstances of this case, with its motion laden file, compel us to first set out its facts and procedural history before discussing those claims in detail or determining the extent to which the plaintiff’s appeal is timely.”)

AC28172, AC30037 — Collins v. Collins [Dissolution of Marriage] (“These two appeals arise from the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. In AC 28172, the defendant...appeals from the trial court’s pendente lite order granting the plaintiff. . .exclusive possession of the marital home. In AC 30037, the defendant appeals from the final judgment of dissolution. We dismiss the appeal in AC 28172 and affirm the judgment of the trial court in AC 30037.”)

AC29257 — Hannon v. Redler [Dissolution of Marriage] (“The defendant. . .appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff. . . . On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) determined the value of his interest in his medical practice, (2) determined the net equity in his home, (3) determined his income and (4) ordered alimony and a distribution of assets to the plaintiff.”)

AC29259, AC29460, AC29865, AC30190 — LaBossiere v. Jones [Dissolution of Marriage] (“A decision to award counsel fees in a marital dissolution dispute ordinarily is based on an appraisal of the respective financial ability of each party to pay his or her own fees. See General Statutes § 46b-62; Koizim v. Koizim, 181 Conn. 492, 500–501, 435 A.2d 1030 (1980). Where, however, ‘a party has engaged in egregious litigation misconduct that has required the other party to expend significant amounts of money for attorney’s fees, and where the court determines, in its discretion, that the misconduct has not been addressed adequately by other orders of the court, the court has discretion to award attorney’s fees to compensate for the harm caused by that misconduct, irrespective of whether the other party has ample liquid assets and of whether the lack of such an award would undermine the court’s other financial orders.’ Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 357, 915 A.2d 790 (2007); see also General Statutes § 46b-87.”)

AC29590 — Taylor v. Taylor (“The defendant, Elinor J. Taylor, appeals from the postjudgment order of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, Marvin J. Taylor, for modification of his alimony obligation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) interpreted the ‘second look’ aspect of the alimony provision in the separation agreement as a de novo postjudgment review and (2) reduced her alimony in contravention of the principles of trust law and considered the trust’s income or appreciation in deciding the plaintiff’s motion for modification.”)

Law Libraries' NewsLog