Rolla v. Rolla

5 Citing cases

  1. Maturo v. Maturo

    296 Conn. 80 (Conn. 2010)   Cited 113 times
    In Maturo, the court recognized that, "[w]hen a parent has an ability to pay a large amount of support, the determination of a child's needs can be generous, but all any parent should be required to pay, regardless of his or her ability, is a fair share of the amount actually necessary to maintain the child in a reasonable standard of living.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rolla v. Rolla, 48 Conn. App. 732, 747, 712 A.2d 440, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921, 717 A.2d 237 (1998); see also Hawkins v. Hawkins, 11 Conn. App. 195, 197-98, 526 A.2d 872 (1987); Seaver v. Seaver, 10 Conn. App. 134, 521 A.2d 1053 (1987). Mindful of this principle, we conclude that the defendant's claim has no merit.

  2. O'Brien v. O'brien

    161 Conn. App. 575 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 22 times
    In O'Brien, this court noted that a trial court's enforcement power is "necessary to preserve its dignity and to protect its proceedings."

    Although no appellate court has attempted to define in any precise manner what would constitute an exceptional, intervening circumstance, we have clarified previously that any increase or decrease in the value of property following the date of dissolution does not, in and of itself, constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a deviation from the rule requiring the court to value the assets in the marital estate as of the date of dissolution. See id.; see also Kremenitzer v. Kremenitzer, supra, 81 Conn.App. at 139โ€“40, 838 A.2d 1026; Rolla v. Rolla, 48 Conn.App. 732, 745, 712 A.2d 440, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921, 717 A.2d 237 (1998). With these principles in mind, we turn to the plaintiff's claim.

  3. Kiniry v. Kiniry

    71 Conn. App. 614 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 9 times

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rolla v. Rolla, 48 Conn. App. 732, 737, 712 A.2d 440, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921, 717 A.2d 237 (1998). The defendant first seems to contend that the nonvested stock options were not properly distributable under ยง 46b-81 (a) because they were not marital assets.

  4. State v. Hernandez

    53 Conn. App. 706 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    "`[T]he factual findings of a trial court on any issue are reversible only if they are clearly erroneous. . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'. . . Schult v. Schult, 40 Conn. App. 675, 682, 672 A.2d 959 (1996), aff'd, 241 Conn. 767, 699 A.2d 134 (1997)." Rolla v. Rolla, 48 Conn. App. 732, 737, 712 A.2d 440, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921, 717 A.2d 237 (1998). The signed affidavit, which the detectives submitted in support of their application for a search and seizure warrant for the defendant's apartment, states that "the affiants on 2-18-95 at approximately 1830 hours met with the informant who stated that he observed [Rosario] and another Hispanic male who he knows as Luis Martinez bring a large amount of heroin into the apartment at 94 Whitmore Street, first floor apartment. . . . The informant stated that Rosario . . . had returned to 94 Whitmore Street and that as we speak they are packaging heroin in the targeted location."

  5. Lynch v. Lynch

    No. FBTFA084024947 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2012)

    The court deals in gross income amounts in calculation child support and net income figures for alimony; Cleary v. Cleary, 103 Conn.App. 798, 801-04, 930 A.2d 811 (2007); Ludgin v. McGowan, 64 Conn.App. 355, 780 A.2d 198 (2001); but the court is not required to consider tax consequences of its orders. See Powers v. Powers, 186 Conn. 8, 9-10, 438 A.2d 846 (1982); Rolla v. Rolla, 48 Conn.App. 732, 712 A.2d 440, cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921, 717 A.2d 237 (1998). Even if the court considers the years that the plaintiff excluded from his calculation, their earning capacities are not that far apart with average weekly gross incomes of $1,101 and $1,247 respectively.