Durham v. Miceli

543 A.2d 286, 15 Conn. App. 96, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 244
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedMay 18, 1988
Docket5884
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 543 A.2d 286 (Durham v. Miceli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Durham v. Miceli, 543 A.2d 286, 15 Conn. App. 96, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 244 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff has challenged the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of his action for an annulment of his marriage. The marriage of the parties was previously dissolved by judgment of the Superior Court. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs action for annulment of marriage on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction because the marriage had previously been dissolved.

We recognize that an annulment and a dissolution of marriage differ fundamentally. An annulment renders the marriage void ab initio while a dissolution is based upon a valid marriage which terminates as of the date of the judgment of dissolution. See Mazzei v. Cantales, 142 Conn. 173, 178, 112 A.2d 205 (1955); Schibi v. Schibi, 136 Conn. 196, 200, 69 A.2d 831 (1949); Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 196, 175 A. 574 (1934).

We need not address the legal consequences of an annulment as opposed to a dissolution of marriage in this case, or whether the trial court dismissed this case on correct grounds.

[97]*97In order to be entitled to an annulment of marriage, the plaintiff must allege and prove that “the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state or, the state in which the marriage was performed.” General Statutes § 46b-40 (b). The plaintiffs complaint is devoid of such allegations. The trial court’s action in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint was, therefore, justified.

Nor need we address the plaintiff’s contention that he should have been afforded an opportunity to argue against the dismissal of his complaint. The trial court was justified, as a matter of law, in dismissing the complaint.

There is no error.

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

Related

Ciarleglio v. Martin
228 Conn. App. 241 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2024)
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz
130 P.3d 986 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2006)
Brennauer v. Brennauer, No. Fa 02-0124680s (Nov. 14, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 14563 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Duren v. Burwood, No. Fa 01 0084521 (Aug. 29, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11791 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Ross v. Ross, No. Fa97 0162587 S (Aug. 10, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9021 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Allshouse v. Farmer, No. Fa 960153327s (Mar. 10, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2220 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Allshouse v. Farmer, No. Fa96-0153327s (Mar. 10, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2082 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Gutkowski v. Gutkowski, No. Fa 967125715 (Nov. 4, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9502 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Misheff v. Misheff, No. Fa94 0139817 (Dec. 12, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13670 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Gregor v. Kamerling, No. Fa 89-0257042-S (Aug. 5, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7411 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
543 A.2d 286, 15 Conn. App. 96, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-miceli-connappct-1988.