Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/Chambliss v. Chambliss

Chambliss v. Chambliss

370 A.2d 924, 171 Conn. 278, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1164
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJuly 6, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 370 A.2d 924 (Chambliss v. Chambliss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chambliss v. Chambliss, 370 A.2d 924, 171 Conn. 278, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1164 (Colo. 1976).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decisive issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of alimony awarded to the plaintiff in the judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties.

It is well settled that the trial court’s decision as to the type and amount of property assigned or alimony awarded in an action for divorce or dissolution of a marriage is based upon the circumstances of the parties to the action and is within the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into account the length of the marriage, the causes of the dissolution, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employ-ability, estate and needs of each of the parties and, in the case of a parent to whom custody of minor children is awarded, the desirability of that parent securing employment. These criteria have been codified in §§ 46-51 and 46-52 of the General Statutes. See Krieble v. Krieble, 168 Conn. 7, 357 A.2d 475.

The court’s finding and memorandum of decision in this case clearly indicate that it fully considered these criteria in making the award which it did. We find no abuse of discretion in the judgment of the court.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Borchers v. Borchers, No. Fa93 030 74 21 S (Apr. 21, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 3386 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Kinseley v. Kinseley, No. Fa94 031 21 92 S (Nov. 28, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11833 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Scavo v. Scavo, No. Fa93 03097385 S (May 12, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5100 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Arella v. Arella, No. 30 91 78 (Mar. 24, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3148 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Dilillo v. Dilillo, No. 308609 (Oct. 13, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8363 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Meyzen v. Meyzen, No. 30 31 83 (Jun. 29, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6269 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Lowe v. Lowe, No. 30 50 78 (May 4, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4113 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Flanagan v. Flanagan, No. 09 41 08 (Feb. 21, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1435 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Daigle v. Daigle, No. 09 55 19 (Dec. 23, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10594 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
Duncan v. Duncan, No. 51 49 14 (Oct. 28, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 9120 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
Dimaggio v. Dimaggio, No. 09 33 28 (Oct. 9, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8891 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
Sands v. Sands
448 A.2d 822 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
North v. North
438 A.2d 807 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1981)
Koizim v. Koizim
435 A.2d 1030 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
Posada v. Posada
427 A.2d 406 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
Fucci v. Fucci
425 A.2d 592 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
Krause v. Krause
387 A.2d 548 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1978)
Kateley v. Kateley
374 A.2d 1049 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1977)
Aguire v. Aguire
370 A.2d 948 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
370 A.2d 924, 171 Conn. 278, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambliss-v-chambliss-conn-1976.