From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seaver v. Seaver

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Mar 10, 1987
521 A.2d 1053 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987)

Opinion

(5069)

Submitted on briefs February 9, 1987

Decision released March 10, 1987

Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, where the court, Covello, J., ordered the defendant to make certain child support and alimony payments pendente lite, and the defendant appealed to this court. No error.

Timothy Sheehan filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).

Lloyd Frauenglass and Nancy L. Thomson filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).


The defendant appeals from the trial court's judgment entering certain pendente lite orders in this dissolution case. The trial court issued a comprehensive and well reasoned memorandum of decision setting forth its factual findings in detail and applying the appropriate legal criteria. See Kaplan v. Kaplan, 8 Conn. App. 114, 116-18, 510 A.2d 1024 (1986). There is no requirement in the applicable statutes which makes it mandatory that a trial court consider the federal tax implications of its financial orders. The court's judgment was not an abuse of its necessarily broad discretion. McPhee v. McPhee, 186 Conn. 167, 177, 440 A.2d 274 (1982); Niles v. Niles, 9 Conn. App. 240, 254, 518 A.2d 932 (1986); Jetmore v. Jetmore, 6 Conn. App. 632, 634, 507 A.2d 116 (1986).


Summaries of

Seaver v. Seaver

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Mar 10, 1987
521 A.2d 1053 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987)
Case details for

Seaver v. Seaver

Case Details

Full title:WREN A. SEAVER v. MICHAEL A. SEAVER

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Mar 10, 1987

Citations

521 A.2d 1053 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987)
10 Conn. App. 134

Citing Cases

Weiss v. Weiss

Mr. Weiss argues that this court, in its discretion, should consider the tax impact of the intended sale of…

Steczkowski v. Steczkowski

"There is no requirement in the applicable statutes which makes it mandatory that a trial court consider the…