Skip to main content

Oudheusden v. Oudheusden

Citations

  • 338 Conn. 761

Syllabus

The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff had been dissolved, appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court. The trial court had awarded the plaintiff $18,000 per month in alimony that was not modifiable in duration or amount. The trial court found that the defendant's gross annual income of $550,000 was derived from two closely held businesses that he owned, which were valued at $904,000. As part of its financial orders, the court awarded 50 percent of the fair market value of the two businesses to each party and ordered that the defendant retain 100 percent ownership of both businesses. On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court impermissibly double counted his income by considering it both for the purpose of valuing his businesses and in making its alimony award. The Appellate Court reversed in part the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new hearing on all financial issues. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion 7 The defendant argues that he was seized in violation of the fourth amend- ment pursuant to State v. Edmonds, 323 Conn. 34, 145 A.3d 861 (2016), in which this court determined that an unlawful seizure had taken place when, inter alia, ''two marked police cruisers converged on the defendant from opposite directions, effectively blocking him from exiting the [parking] lot . . . .'' Id., 57. We reject the defendant's contention that this case is analo- gous to Edmonds. In Edmonds, the defendant's initial encounter with law enforcement originated as a result of an investigation into potential criminal activity. See id., 40–41. No such suspicion of potential criminal activity existed when Loud approached the defendant. We consider Edmonds inap- posite. 762 OCTOBER, 2021 338 Conn. 761 Oudheusden v. Oudheusden in failing to issue equitable orders and to consider, with respect to its alimony award, the possibility that the defendant, w

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.