Hallock v. Hallock
Citations
- 228 Conn. App. 81
Syllabus
The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff and issuing various orders. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court failed to address her pendente lite motions for alimony and counsel fees in a separate and distinct manner prior to considering the final financial orders. Held: The trial court properly considered all of the plaintiff's pendente lite motions for alimony and counsel fees, independently adjudicated those motions, and incorporated its ruling on those motions in its final financial orders as part of the dissolution of the parties' marriage, and it declined to award alimony or attorney's fees pendente lite. This court concluded that the defendant's claim that the trial court applied an improper legal standard to her claim for alimony and the division of the marital property was without merit, as the trial court properly cited to and applied the relevant statutes (§§ 46b-81 and 46b-82) in issuing its finan- cial orders. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney's fees to the defendant. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the trial court did not take judicial notice of facts regarding the defendant's employment opportunities and future earnings as part of its determination that the defendant had the ability to support herself following the dissolution judgment and financial orders. The trial court rejected the defendant's testimony regarding the cause of the dissolution of the marriage as not credible, and, contrary to the defen- dant's claim, it did not discredit that testimony due to a lack of corroborat- ing evidence. Argued May 14—officially released September 17, 2024
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- under abuse of discretion standard, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of correctness of trial court’s decision
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Seeley; Westbrook; Pellegrino
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Valante v. ValanteSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-05-13· cited 156×
- Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1970-06-09· cited 144×
- Ahneman v. AhnemanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-01-20· cited 63×
- Weinstein v. WeinsteinConnecticut Appellate Court· 1989-06-13· cited 45×
- Elliott v. ElliottConnecticut Appellate Court· 1988-05-31· cited 21×
- TOWN OF TRUMBULL v. PalmerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-08-17· cited 18×
- Milbauer v. MilbauerConnecticut Appellate Court· 1999-07-27· cited 18×
- Papa v. PapaConnecticut Appellate Court· 1999-09-21· cited 17×
- Zahringer v. ZahringerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-11-02· cited 16×
- Leonova v. LeonovConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-11-17· cited 13×
- Emrich v. EmrichConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-04-05· cited 8×
- Hebrand v. HebrandConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-10-25· cited 7×
- L. K. v. K. K.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-06-18· cited 7×
- Dolan v. DolanConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-03-29· cited 6×
- Ferri v. Powell-FerriConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-09-15· cited 5×
- M. B. v. S. A.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2019-12-10· cited 4×
- M. S. v. P. S.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2021-03-23· cited 3×
- Barnes v. Connecticut Podiatry Group, P.C.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2020-01-14· cited 2×
- Zakko v. KasirConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-01-04· cited 2×
- Wilson v. Di IulioConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-08-27· 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.