Emerick v. Emerick

Connecticut Appellate Court

Emerick v. Emerick

551 A.2d 36, 17 Conn. App. 811, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 467

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1988

Docket6410

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 551 A.2d 36 (Emerick v. Emerick) 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

Emerick v. Emerick, 551 A.2d 36, 17 Conn. App. 811, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 467 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage was rendered on December 12, 1983. The plaintiff wife appealed to this court and the defendant husband cross-appealed. Issues of custody and financial awards were decided by this court and reported in Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649, 502 A.2d 933 (1985), cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804, 510 A.2d 192 (1986).

During the pendency of the prior appeal, the plaintiff relocated permanently to Brazil with the minor [812]*812child. The defendant has filed numerous postappeal and postjudgment motions involving claims for modification of custody, financial awards, counsel fees and in defense of contempt orders regarding the defendant’s failure to comply with financial orders of the dissolution court. The trial court’s rulings on those motions constitute the basis of the present appeal.

After a complete examination of the record, transcripts and the defendant’s brief,¹ and after affording each of the defendant’s claims of error the appropriate scope of review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in any of its rulings.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage was rendered on December 12, 1983. The plaintiff wife appealed to this court and the defendant husband cross-appealed. Issues of custody and financial awards were decided by this court and reported in Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649, 502 A.2d 933 (1985), cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804, 510 A.2d 192 (1986).

During the pendency of the prior appeal, the plaintiff relocated permanently to Brazil with the minor [812]*812child. The defendant has filed numerous postappeal and postjudgment motions involving claims for modification of custody, financial awards, counsel fees and in defense of contempt orders regarding the defendant’s failure to comply with financial orders of the dissolution court. The trial court’s rulings on those motions constitute the basis of the present appeal.

After a complete examination of the record, transcripts and the defendant’s brief,¹ and after affording each of the defendant’s claims of error the appropriate scope of review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in any of its rulings.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 A.2d 36, 17 Conn. App. 811, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerick-v-emerick-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack