Opinion
(AC 16093)
SYLLABUS
The defendant appealed to this court following the trial court's modification of certain alimony and child support awards and that court's award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently amended her appeal to challenge the trial court's failure to act on certain motions she filed while the appeal was pending. This court dismissed the latter portion of the appeal due to lack of final judgment, and the Supreme Court reversed that dismissal and directed the trial court to resolve the defendant's motions. Because that remand returned certain of the financial issues to the trial court, the issues remaining before this court on the appeal had to be remanded to that court for a proper resolution of the interrelated issues.
Submitted on briefs November 13, 1997, 1998
Officially released March 31, 1998
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Novack, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and granting certain other relief; thereafter, the court, Harrigan, J., granted the plaintiff's motion to modify the judgment, and the defendant appealed to this court; subsequently, the court awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and the defendant filed an amended appeal; thereafter, the defendant filed several motions for, inter alia, contempt, on which the court never acted, and the defendant further amended her appeal to challenge that inaction; this court, sua sponte, dismissed, in part, the defendant's appeal, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed this court's judgment and remanded the case, in part, for further trial court proceedings to resolve the defendant's motions. Remanded; further proceedings.
Brenden P. Leydon filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).
Catherine P. Whelan filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).
OPINION
On June 21, 1996, the defendant appealed to this court from the trial court's judgment modifying awards of alimony and child support. On September 30, 1996, the defendant amended her appeal to include the trial court's award of counsel fees. While the amended appeal was pending, the defendant filed motions in the trial court concerning numerous other financial matters. The trial court declined to rule on those motions on the ground that the case was on appeal.
On October 21, 1996, the defendant amended her appeal a second time so as to include a claim challenging the trial court's refusal to consider these later motions. This court dismissed the second amended appeal on the ground that there was no final judgment. The Supreme Court granted certification on our dismissal and, on January 20, 1998, reversed our decision and remanded the second amended appeal, through us, to the trial court "for prompt resolution of the defendant's motions regarding financial issues." Ahneman v. Ahneman, 243 Conn. 471, 485, ___ A.2d ___ (1998).
The result of these actions is that the trial court now has before it the defendant's motions regarding financial issues, while we still have before us the financial issues comprising the first amended appeal. This bifurcation of financial issues violates the spirit and the letter of Sunbury v. Sunbury, 210 Conn. 170, 174-75, 553 A.2d 612 (1989). "The issues involving financial orders are entirely interwoven. `The rendering of a judgment in a complicated dissolution case is a carefully crafted mosaic, each element of which may be dependent on the other.' Ehrenkranz v. Ehrenkranz, 2 Conn. App. 416, 424, 479 A.2d 826 (1984)." Id., 175.
It is not reasonable to expect the trial court to craft this mosaic carefully if it does not have all of the relevant pieces with which to work. Accordingly, we decline to decide the financial matters before us and remand them to the Superior Court so that it may properly perform the duties imposed on it by the Supreme Court.