Skip to main content

Walker v. Walker

Citations

  • 222 Conn. App. 192

Syllabus

The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff and making certain financial orders. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly failed to consider each factor set forth in the applicable statute (§ 46b- 81 (c)) when distributing the marital property: because the trial court expressly stated that it had considered all of the statutory criteria for marital property distributions in § 46b-81, it is presumed to have per- formed its duty unless the contrary appears from the record, and, in this case, the court provided a well reasoned analysis for the disparity in awards, which was based on the facts, including the origin of the assets, the parties' respective contributions, and their respective needs; moreover, it is well established that, in a case in which the court has considered all statutory criteria, the court need not make express find- ings as to each individual statutory criterion. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court applied an unreasonable amount of weight to his fault in the breakdown of the marriage in fashioning its orders distributing the marital property and awarding alimony: the court stated that it had considered all of the statutory factors for distributing marital property in § 46b-81 and for awarding alimony pursuant to statute (§ 46b-82), and this court deter- mined that the trial court properly considered fault in fashioning its financial orders and, in fact, was required to do so because the cause for the dissolution of the marriage is a statutory factor that the court must consider in distributing marital property and awarding alimony in a contested dissolution proceeding; moreover, contrary to the defendant's claim, a finding by the trial court of irretrievable breakdown, rather than intolerable cruelty, a ground also alleged by the plaintiff, does not preclude it from considering fault in fashioning its

Judges: Cradle; Suarez; Flynn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.