Posada v. Posada

67 Citing cases

  1. Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth

    429 A.2d 463 (Conn. 1980)   Cited 9 times
    In Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 180 Conn. 212 (1980), the court granted dissolution finding that the marriage had broken down irretrievably but not on the grounds of intolerable cruelty.

    This court has repeatedly declared that assignments of property interests rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 572, 427 A.2d 406; Ridolfi v. Ridolfi, 178 Conn. 377, 379, 423 A.2d 85; Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 262-63, 413 A.2d 854; Pasquariello v. Pasquariello, 168 Conn. 579, 584, 362 A.2d 835. The trial court's exercise of discretion will not be disturbed so long as it could reasonably conclude as it did. Fucci v. Fucci, 179 Conn. 174, 181, 425 A.2d 592; Ridolfi v. Ridolfi, supra; Grinold v. Grinold, 172 Conn. 192, 194, 374 A.2d 172; Aguire v. Aguire, 171 Conn. 312, 314, 370 A.2d 948. In an effort to have the trial court's assignment of property deemed an abuse of discretion, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in failing (1) to attribute fault to the defendant in causing the marital dissolution; and (2) to assess properly the parties' assets and liabilities. It is clear from the plaintiff's brief that her second claim is synonymous with her attack on certain of the trial court's findings of fact detailing the personal and financial affairs of the parties.

  2. JAX v. JAX

    1999 Ct. Sup. 9807 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

    The court is not obligated to make express findings on each of these statutory criteria. Dublicki v. Dublicki 186 Conn. 709, 443 A.2d 1268 (1982); Posada v. Posada 179 Conn. 568, 573 427 A.2d 406 (1980). The purpose of the alimony is to meet one's continuing duty to support; Wood v. Wood 165 Conn. 777, 784, 345 A.2d 5 (1974); while the purpose of property division is to unscramble the ownership of property, giving each spouse what is equitably his. Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 195, 440 A.2d 283 (1982); Weiman v. Weiman 188 Conn. 232, 234; Sweet v. Sweet, 190 Conn. 657, 660.

  3. Hebert v. Hebert

    1999 Ct. Sup. 6595 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

    The court is not obligated to make express findings on each of these statutory criteria. Dublicki v. Dublicki 186 Conn. 709, 443 A.2d 1268 (1982); Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 573 427 A.2d 406 (1980). The purpose of the alimony is to meet one's continuing duty to support; Wood v. Wood, 165 Conn. 777, 784, 345 A.2d 5 (1974); while the purpose of property division is to unscramble the ownership of property, giving each spouse what is equitably his. Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 195, 440 A.2d 283 (1982); Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232, 234; Sweet v. Sweet, 190 Conn. 657, 660.

  4. Riley v. Riley

    1999 Ct. Sup. 6968 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

    The court is not obligated to make express findings on each of these statutory criteria. Dublicki v. Dublicki, 186 Conn. 709, 443 A.2d 1268 (1982); Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 573 427 A.2d 406 (1980). The purpose of the alimony is to meet one's continuing duty to support; Wood v. Wood, 165 Conn. 777, 784, 345 A.2d 5 (1974); while the purpose of property division is to unscramble the ownership of property, giving each spouse what is equitably his. Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 195, 440 A.2d 283 (1982); Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232, 234; Sweet v. Sweet, 190 Conn. 657. 660.

  5. Cournoyer v. Cournoyer

    1999 Ct. Sup. 5351 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

    The court is not obligated to make express findings on each of these statutory criteria. Dublicki v. Dublicki, 186 Conn. 709, 443, A.2d 1268 (1982); Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 573 427 A.2d 406 (1980). The purpose of the alimony is to meet one's continuing duty to support; Wood v. Wood; 165 Conn. 777, 784, 345 A.2d 5 (1974); while the purpose of property division is to unscramble the ownership of property, giving each spouse what is equitably his. Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 195, 440 A.2d 283 (1982); Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232, 234; Sweet v. Sweet, 190 Conn. 657, 660.

  6. Hunt v. Hunt

    1999 Ct. Sup. 3839 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

    General Statutes ยง 46b-81 (c). The court is not obligated to make express findings on each of these statutory criteria Dublicki v. Dublicki, 186 Conn. 709, 443 A.2d 1268 (1982); Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 57 427 A.2d 406 (1980). The purpose of the alimony is to meet ones continuing duty to support; Wood v. Wood 165 Conn. 777, 784, 345 A.2d 5 (1974); while the purpose of property division is to unscramble the ownership of property, giving each spouse what is equitably his. Beede v. Beede 186 Conn. 191, 195, 440 A.2d 283 (1982); Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232, 234; Sweet v. Sweet 190 Conn. 657, 600.

  7. Stone v. Stone

    1998 Ct. Sup. 12123 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)

    `This court has reiterated time and again that awards of financial settlements, ancillary to a marital dissolution rest in the sound discretion of the trial court.'" Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 572; 427 A.2d 406 (1980).Valante v. Valante, 280 Conn. 528, 530 (1980).

  8. Hilger v. Hilger

    1998 Ct. Sup. 11086 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)

    "The court is not obligated to make express findings on each of these statutory criteria. Dublicki v. Dublicki, 186 Conn. 709, 716, 443 A.2d 1268 (1982); Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 573 427 A.2d 406 (1980). The purpose of the alimony is to meet one's continuing duty to support; Wood v. Wood, 165 Conn. 777, 784, 345 A.2d 5 (1974); while the purpose of property division is to unscramble the ownership of property, giving each spouse what is equitably his. Beede v. Beede, 186 conn. 191, 195, 440 A.2d 283 (1982).

  9. Schwab v. Schwab

    944 A.2d 156 (R.I. 2008)   Cited 8 times

    The Court further has held that decisions to award alimony are within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 427 A.2d 406, 408 (1980). When awarding alimony, Connecticut courts must consider the length of the marriage and the causes for its dissolution, as well the age, health, station in life, occupation, amount and sources of income, and assets of each party.

  10. Holley v. Holley

    194 Conn. 25 (Conn. 1984)   Cited 51 times
    Recognizing broad judicial discretion under ยง 46b-82

    "As has been repeatedly stated by this court, judicial review of a trial court's exercise of its broad discretion in domestic relations cases is limited to the questions of whether the [trial] court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did." Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 194, 440 A.2d 283 (1982); see also Valante v. Valante, 180 Conn. 528, 530, 429 A.2d 964 (1980); Posada v. Posada, 179 Conn. 568, 572, 427 A.2d 406 (1980); Ayers v. Ayers, 172 Conn. 316, 321-22, 374 A.2d 233 (1977). "`With respect to the financial awards in a dissolution action, great weight is given to the judgment of the trial court because of its opportunity to observe the parties and the evidence.