Opinion
No. 19315.
2015-06-23
Turi ROSTAD v. Leon HIRSCH.
Daniel P. Scholfield, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Hugh F. Keefe, New Haven, Benjamin D. Gettinger and Rosalie D. Morgan, for the appellant-appellee (defendant). Debra C. Ruel, Hartford, with whom was James M. Ruel, Stamford, for the appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
Daniel P. Scholfield, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Hugh F. Keefe, New Haven, Benjamin D. Gettinger and Rosalie D. Morgan, for the appellant-appellee (defendant). Debra C. Ruel, Hartford, with whom was James M. Ruel, Stamford, for the appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
ROGERS, C.J., and ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD and ESPINOSA, Js.
The plaintiff, Turi Rostad, and the defendant, Leon Hirsch, both appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court in the plaintiff's paternity action against the defendant seeking an order of support and maintenance for her minor son, attorney's fees, statutory interest, past due child support and past due “special child support.” In his appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly had awarded: (1) past due child support to the plaintiff for the period from May 1, 2008 to June 1, 2009; (2) interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37–3a on the trial court's January 29, 2010 pendente lite award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff; and (3) additional attorney's fees to the plaintiff's counsel. In her cross appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly had: (1) failed to award past due child support for the period from May 15, 2005 to April 30, 2008; (2) failed to award past due “special child support” under the child support and arrearage guidelines set forth in § 46b–215a–1 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies; and (3) awarded only $200 in attorney's fees to two of her attorneys. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Rostad v. Hirsch, 148 Conn.App. 441, 470, 85 A.3d 1212 (2014). We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal on the following issues: (1) “Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's award of ‘past due’ child support for the period of May 1, 2008 to June 1, 2009?”; (2) “Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's award of interest under ... § 37–3a for the period of time that the trial court's order of attorney's fees was on appeal?”; and (3) “Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's award of $127,552.58 in additional attorney's fees?” Rostad v. Hirsch, 311 Conn. 948, 91 A.3d 463 (2014). We also granted the plaintiff's cross petition to appeal on the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's decision denying the plaintiff's claim for ‘back child support’ in this paternity action, for the period from May 15, 2005 to April 30, 2008, pursuant to the child support guidelines and Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 995 A.2d 1 (2010)?” Rostad v. Hirsch, 311 Conn. 949, 91 A.3d 463 (2014). After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal and cross appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
The appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed.