State v. Mitchell

5 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Williams

    276 Conn. 491 (Conn. 2005)   Cited 22 times
    Concluding that settlement agreement “clear [ly] and unequivocal[ly]” provided that modifications upon remarriage were to be governed by § 46b–86 [b], requiring court to follow that statute despite fact that legislature intended it to govern cohabitation, and that legislative “intent has no bearing on whether parties or the dissolution court can invoke the statute for a different purpose in an agreement or decree”

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn. App. 459, 470, 743 A.2d 1135, cert. granted, 253 Conn. 910, 754 A.2d 160 (2000) (appeal withdrawn September 27, 2000). Because the language of the settlement agreement in the present case, as incorporated into the dissolution judgment, is clear and unambiguous, our review is plenary.

  2. Lehane v. Murray

    215 Conn. App. 305 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    In Lehane, the trial court, after hearing several postdissolution motions regarding custody and visitation, issued an order granting the defendant sole physical custody of the parties’ child, J. Id., at 308, 283 A.3d 62.

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Amodio v. Amodio , 56 Conn. App. 459, 470, 743 A.2d 1135, cert. granted, 253 Conn. 910, 754 A.2d 160 (2000) (appeal withdrawn September 27, 2000). "Once the provisions of a separation agreement ... are incorporated into the dissolution judgment, they can be modified by court order only if the agreement so incorporated does not preclude modification."

  3. Williams v. Comm'r of Corr.

    133 Conn. App. 96 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    (Citation omitted.) Marone v. Waterbury, 244 Conn. 1, 10–11, 707 A.2d 725 (1998); see also Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn.App. 459, 472, 743 A.2d 1135, (“[d]ecisional law can apply retroactively only to cases that are pending”), cert. granted on other grounds, 253 Conn. 910, 754 A.2d 160 (2000) (appeal withdrawn September 27, 2000). By the time Murray was released on September 5, 2000, the petitioner's direct appeal, which was released on August 23, 1994, was final.

  4. Tomlinson v. Tomlinson

    119 Conn. App. 194 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 14 times

    clear language of the statute permits nonmodifiable support orders. Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn. App. 459, 471, 743 A.2d 1135, cert. granted, 253 Conn. 910, 754 A.2d 160 (2000) (appeal withdrawn September 27, 2000). Although permissible, provisions prohibiting the modification of alimony or support are disfavored.

  5. Montoya v. Montoya

    91 Conn. App. 407 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 20 times

    Accordingly, we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to those claims. Cf. Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn. App. 459, 470, 743 A.2d 1135, cert. granted on other grounds, 253 Conn. 910, 754 A.2d 160 (2000) (appeal withdrawn September 27, 2000).