Barber v. Barber
Citations
- 193 Conn. App. 190
Syllabus
The defendant filed a motion to modify an award of child support that had been issued in connection with a foreign judgment of dissolution. He sought a downward modification of his child support obligations, claim- ing that there had been a substantial change in his and the plaintiff's financial circumstances. In support of his motion, the defendant cited statutes from Connecticut (§ 46b-86) and New York (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]), both of which permit modification of a child support order upon demonstration by the moving party of a substantial change in the financial circumstances of either party. Following the dissolution, the plaintiff moved from New York to Connecticut with the parties' four children, and the defendant moved to New Jersey. In response to the motion to modify, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order requesting the trial court to find that the New York child support guidelines applied to the defendant's motion. Prior to the dissolution of their marriage, the parties had entered a detailed separation agreement, which was incorporated into the dissolution judgment, provided that it was to be construed pursuant to New York law and required that the defendant pay the plaintiff basic child support and add-on child support. The agreement also contained a default provision, which provided, inter alia, that if a party failed to perform his or her obligations under the agreement, the aggrieved party could bring an action to enforce his or her rights, and if that action was successful, the defaulting party was liable for the aggrieved party's reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for order, concluding that the substantive law of New York applied to the defendant's motion to modify. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt regarding the children's add-on expenses, a motion for attorney's fees and costs, and a motion for contempt regarding the defendant's alleged fail
Judges: Lavine; Prescott; Elgo
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- J. Y. v. M. R.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2022-10-11· cited 9×
- Karen v. LoftusConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-01-25· cited 5×
- American Tax Funding, LLC v. Design Land Developers of Newtown, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2020-10-20· cited 4×
- United Public Service Employees Union, Cops Local 062 v. HamdenConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-12-07· cited 4×
- Kazemi v. AllenConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-07-26· cited 2×
- Holloway v. CarvalhoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-08-03· cited 1×
- R. G.-R. v. S. R.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-07-09· cited 1×
- In re Probate Appeal of TunickConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-10-04
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court· 1994-06-17· cited 584×
- Jaser v. JaserConnecticut Appellate Court· 1995-03-14· cited 54×
- Afkari-Ahmadi v. Fotovat-AhmadiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-12-29· cited 37×
- O'Brien v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-06-27· cited 37×
- Breiter v. BreiterConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-12-02· cited 18×
- Sherman v. ShermanConnecticut Appellate Court· 1996-06-25· cited 13×
- Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. BurtonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2004-02-24· cited 13×
- Matter of Kolodny v. PerlmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2016-10-12· cited 8×
- St. Germain v. St. GermainConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-05-08· cited 6×
- Munro v. MunozConnecticut Appellate Court· 2013-12-03· cited 5×
- Musolino v. MusolinoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-06-08· cited 3×
- Hammick v. HammickConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-08-20· cited 2×
- Aliano v. AlianoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2014-02-18· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.