Garms v. Garms, No. 087419 (Dec. 23, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 11223
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided December 23, 1993·No. No. 087419·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION de DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (#122) The defendant's motion for clarification is granted. The court addressed the three issues raised in the motion as follows.

1. The court made no allocation between current payments and arrearage payments. The periodic alimony order was reduced to $250.

2. The order is not retroactive. The defendant did not serve his motion upon the plaintiff pursuant to 52-50 Connecticut General Statutes, General Statutes 46b-84(a), CT Page 11224 Diamond v. Diamond, 32 Conn. App. 733.

3. The life insurance ordered to be carried by the defendant is not terminated or reduced.

HARRIGAN, J.

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

Garms v. Garms, No. 087419 (Dec. 23, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 11223 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 11223 (Garms v. Garms, No. 087419 (Dec. 23, 1993)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Diamond v. Diamond
631 A.2d 1157 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)