Davis v. Davis
Citations
- 200 Conn. App. 180
Syllabus
The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from certain postjudgment rulings of the trial court, claiming, inter alia, that the court improperly calculated his child support arrearage in violation of statute (§ 46b-224) and granted the plaintiff's motion to modify his alimony obligation without first providing him notice that it would act on the motion. The parties had filed a litany of postjudgment motions between April, 2016 and Decem- ber, 2017, that were either repeatedly continued or not acted on by the trial court. Thereafter, the court in January, 2018, issued an order notify- ing the parties that it would address all pending motions on a certain date in February, 2018. Held: 1. The defendant received adequate notice in satisfaction of his right to due process that the trial court might dispose of the plaintiff's motion for modification of alimony at the February, 2018 hearing: the January, 2018 order unambiguously stated that all pending motions were to be addressed at the February, 2018 hearing, the court had notified the parties at a previous hearing that the issue of alimony was to be addressed with all the other pending motions, at no point did the court affirmatively state that it would not rule on the motion for modification, and nothing in the record suggested that the defendant was without notice or that his ability to present evidence or to cross-examine the plaintiff was hindered; moreover, at no point did the defendant state his surprise or express the need for more time to present evidence, the record having suggested that he argued his position before the court and attacked the substance of the plaintiff's financial affidavit she pre- sented in support of her motion. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly ordered him to reimburse the plaintiff for her expenses related to fixing the septic system at the marital residence, which was based on his as
Judges: DiPentima; Elgo; Moll
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Pritchard v. PritchardConnecticut Appellate Court· 2007-08-14· cited 19×
- Spencer v. SpencerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2017-10-31· cited 10×
- Aley v. AleyConnecticut Appellate Court· 2006-10-10· cited 7×
- Dechellis v. DechellisConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-06-25· cited 7×
- Spencer v. SpencerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-31· cited 7×
- Styrcula v. StyrculaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-12-25· cited 5×
- Shapiro v. ShapiroConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-12-16· cited 4×
- Curtis v. CurtisConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-04-17· cited 2×
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.