Skip to main content

Zakko v. Kasir

Citations

  • 223 Conn. App. 205

Syllabus

The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the revised financial orders issued by the trial court following its granting of the plaintiff's motion to open the dissolution judgment. In accordance with the parties' separation agreement, which was incorporated into the original dissolution judg- ment, the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff alimony in an amount equal to 30 percent of his gross earned income from work until he reached the age of sixty-five or, if he received veteran's disability income prior to turning sixty-five, 30 percent of his veteran's disability income plus 30 percent of any additional earned income. After the parties' marriage was dissolved, the defendant became disabled, stopped working, and began receiving Social Security disability benefits in addi- tion to payments from a veteran's disability policy and a MassMutual disability insurance policy. As a result, the defendant's earned income decreased, and he began paying the plaintiff significantly less alimony. The defendant did not pay the plaintiff any portion of the income he received from the MassMutual policy because he did not believe that it constituted earned income for purposes of the dissolution judgment. The plaintiff filed a motion to open the dissolution judgment, arguing that it had been secured by fraud on the part of the defendant or, in the alternative, that it was obtained by the mutual mistake of the parties regarding the defendant's income and assets. At a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to pursue discovery with respect to her fraud allegations, the plaintiff's counsel began questioning the defendant about the MassMutual policy. Following an objection by the defendant's counsel, the trial court started questioning the parties' attor- neys and did not allow either counsel to further question the defendant or to present other evidence. The trial court then stated that it found that

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • ‘‘[i]t is axiomatic that parties have a right to present evidence on contested issues when at a hearing before the court’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark; Seeley; DiPentima

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.